Othernet — La Réunion

government_communes_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search communes via the official geography API; defaults to department 974. Population has its source reference period. Read-only adapter. Cache 24h; stale replies are marked.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No
`limit`	No
`api_key`	No	Ask974.re agent token, used only by Ask974.re authorization. Never sent to the government provider.
`freshness`	No	fresh accepts unexpired cache or waits for a new collection; it never returns stale data.	allow_stale
`department`	No	French department code. Default 974 = La Réunion.	974
`postal_code`	No

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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: cache duration is 24 hours, stale replies are marked, and population data acknowledges a reference period. These details are not exposed in the annotations or schema and help an agent reason about data freshness and data provenance. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is compact: a short front-loaded purpose sentence, a brief note on population, and a concise cache/stale behavior sentence. Every sentence adds information and there is no filler. The middle sentence about population reference period is a bit cryptic but still compact and informative.

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?

The description covers the core lookup, default department, read-only nature, and cache staleness, which is good for a read-only adapter. However, with six optional parameters and no output schema, it leaves search semantics for q, limit, and postal_code unclear, and does not explain how results are returned. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the description adds little beyond what the schema already says: it mentions the department default 974, but that is already present in the schema. Parameters q, limit, and postal_code remain undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('communes') and identifies the data source as the official geography API, making it distinct from sibling tools like government_address_search and government_enterprises_search. The default department default also clarifies the tool's domain. This is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage by saying 'Search communes, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling search tools such as government_address_search or government_enterprises_search. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned. The context is clear but usage guidance is only implicit.

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?