Othernet — La Réunion

government_address_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Geocode with IGN Géoplateforme; defaults to commune 97411. Inspect fuzzy-match score and citycode. Read-only adapter. Cache 24h; stale replies are marked.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes
`limit`	No
`api_key`	No	Ask974.re agent token, used only by Ask974.re authorization. Never sent to the government provider.
`city_code`	No	INSEE commune code. Defaults to Saint-Denis, La Réunion (97411).	97411
`freshness`	No	fresh accepts unexpired cache or waits for a new collection; it never returns stale data.	allow_stale

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 15, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / api_key / description

Previous value: -"othernet agent token, used only by othernet authorization. Never sent to the government provider."New value: +"Ask974.re agent token, used only by Ask974.re authorization. Never sent to the government provider."

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 13, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

addedInput schema / properties / freshness

Added value: +{
+  "default": "allow_stale",
+  "description": "fresh accepts unexpired cache or waits for a new collection; it never returns stale data.",
+  "enum": [
+    "allow_stale",
+    "fresh"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds cache duration (24h) and stale-marking behavior, plus instruction to inspect fuzzy-match score and citycode. The 'Read-only adapter' phrasing is redundant with annotations but does not contradict them.

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?

Three concise sentences with no fluff. The action is front-loaded, and the additional details (default commune, cache behavior) are presented efficiently.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description lacks explanation of the required q parameter and does not describe the return structure. With no output schema, agents have no idea what the response looks like beyond the hint to inspect score and citycode. Incomplete for a geocoding tool with an unannotated required parameter.

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?

Schema coverage is 60%, leaving q and limit undocumented. The description adds context about output fields (fuzzy-match score, citycode) but does not explain the meaning of q (the address query) or limit. It partially compensates but not enough for the undocumented parameters.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Description states the specific action 'Geocode' and the provider 'IGN Géoplateforme', making the purpose clear. It is implicitly distinct from siblings like government_communes_search or government_enterprises_search by focusing on address geocoding, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied for address geocoding but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus commune/enterprise search. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

All Othernet — La Réunion tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?