psgc-mcp

list_children

List the direct children of a PSGC entity. For a region, returns provinces/districts. For a province, returns cities/municipalities. For a city/municipality, returns barangays. Optionally filter by level. Paginated (default limit: 50).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	Yes	10-digit PSGC code of the parent entity
`level`	No	Filter children by geographic level
`limit`	No	Max records to return (default 50, max 200)
`offset`	No	Number of records to skip (default 0)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed3 schema fields changedMay 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / code / pattern
```
Added value: +"^\\d{10}$"
```

addedInput schema / properties / limit

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Max records to return (default 50, max 200)",
+  "maximum": 200,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / offset

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Number of records to skip (default 0)",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

First observedMar 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination (default limit 50) and the hierarchical mapping, but does not mention error behavior, return format, or edge cases like invalid codes or unsupported level filters. This leaves notable behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is just two sentences, front-loading the primary action and hierarchy logic. Every word adds value, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and edge cases. It covers hierarchy and pagination well, but omits the return structure and error scenarios, making it adequate but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the hierarchy and confirms the default limit, but it does not significantly enrich the parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('direct children of a PSGC entity'), and clearly explains the hierarchy mapping for different entity types. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_hierarchy and list_by_type, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly states when to use the tool by explaining the level-by-level traversal (region to provinces/districts, etc.) and mentions optional level filtering. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it provides clear context but no explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All psgc-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: lookup single code, batch lookup, search by name, list by geographic level, list children, get hierarchy, and query by population. There is no overlap; even the two lookup tools are differentiated by batch vs single.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., batch_lookup, get_hierarchy, list_children), but 'lookup' and 'search' are single words, and 'list_by_type' and 'query_by_population' include prepositions. The naming is clear and readable but not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count5/5

7 tools is well-scoped for a geographic entity server. Each tool provides a distinct function without being too few (covering essential lookups, search, and listing) or too many (no redundancy).

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers all common read operations for geographic entities: single and batch lookup, name search, listing by type and children, hierarchy, and population queries. There are no obvious gaps for the intended read-only domain.

Resources

Need Help?