Forward or reverse geocoding using OpenStreetMap Nominatim. Forward: convert an address to lat/lon. Reverse: convert lat/lon to an address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Address or place name to forward geocode | |
| lat | No | Latitude for reverse geocoding | |
| lon | No | Longitude for reverse geocoding | |
| limit | No | Number of results (max 5) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. Only mentions Nominatim usage but does not disclose rate limits, authentication, error behaviors, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences front-load key information with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks explanation of return values (no output schema) and does not address usage policies or that limit applies primarily to forward geocoding. Adequate for simplicity but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions; the description does not add extra meaning beyond clarifying forward vs reverse roles, which is already inferable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it performs forward and reverse geocoding using OpenStreetMap Nominatim, differentiating from sibling tools (timezone, weather) which are unrelated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies when to use forward (with q) vs reverse (with lat/lon), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct function: geocoding, timezone lookup, and weather retrieval. There is no overlap in their purposes.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (geocode_address, get_timezone, get_weather) and use snake_case uniformly.
Three tools is appropriate for the server's scope—geocoding, timezone, and weather—covering core needs without being excessive.
The set includes forward/reverse geocoding, timezone data, and weather forecasts. Minor gaps like weather alerts or bulk geocoding exist but are not essential for basic coverage.