Find a street in Bilbao’s municipal directory and get candidate matches with street code, portal, neighborhood/district, and X/Y coordinates for reporting incidents.
Busca una calle en el callejero municipal. Devuelve candidatos con TECA_COD_CALLE, portales (TEPO_DIR_PORTAL), barrio/distrito y coordenadas X/Y del portal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | nombre de la calle (p.ej. 'Gran Via') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns multiple candidates (plural implies fuzzy/partial matching) and enumerates the returned fields, but gives no read-only confirmation, matching tolerance (accents, abbreviations), or result limits.
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 tightly-packed sentences: the purpose leads, the return shape follows. Nothing is wasted and the ordering is front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by listing the return fields (TECA_COD_CALLE, portales, barrio/distrito, X/Y), which an agent needs to interpret results. It leaves only minor gaps around matching behavior and authentication context.
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?
Only one parameter, fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with an example ('Gran Via'). The description adds no formatting guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource in Spanish: 'Busca una calle en el callejero municipal' (searches a street in the municipal street directory), and the second sentence enumerates the returned fields. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the nearby reverse_geocode sibling.
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?
No indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reverse_geocode (coordinate-based lookup) or other search tools. It also doesn't state prerequisites for getting useful results (e.g., partial vs. exact street names).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.