Geocoding and reverse geocoding. Converts an address or place name to latitude/longitude, or coordinates back to an address. [$0.01/call]. Params — q: address (forward geocode); lat: latitude (reverse geocode); lon: longitude (reverse geocode); maxItems: integer Example params: {'q': '1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA'}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses cost per call ($0.01/call), which is important operational information. It implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error behavior. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the burden and could be more explicit.
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?
The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, cost inline, and a bullet-style parameter list with an example. Every sentence adds value without 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?
The description explains the input and the general behavior (address to coordinates, coordinates to address) but does not describe the output format or structure. Given the opaque schema and no output schema, a brief mention of the response (e.g., 'returns lat/lon' or 'returns formatted address') would improve completeness. However, the core purpose is fully covered.
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?
Parameters q, lat, lon, and maxItems are listed with a concrete example, making their purpose clear. However, the schema is a generic freeform object with zero coverage, so the description is the only source. It lacks constraints (e.g., valid lat/lon ranges, maxItems bounds), but the given example covers the primary use case.
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?
Description clearly states it performs both forward and reverse geocoding, converting addresses to coordinates and vice versa. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are focused on search, academic, or domain-specific data retrieval.
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?
Usage guidance is implicit via parameter explanation: 'q' for forward geocoding, 'lat' and 'lon' for reverse geocoding. An explicit statement like 'use q when you have an address, use lat/lon when you have coordinates' would strengthen clarity, but the current text is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.