Convert Valencia street addresses and numbers to WGS84 coordinates via the municipal street map, enabling accurate incident reports to the city council.
Calle + número → coordenadas WGS84 con el callejero municipal (p.ej. 'Calle Colón 1, Valencia').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output coordinate system (WGS84) and the data source (municipal street map), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about failure behavior for unmatched addresses, match granularity, or limits. Decent but incomplete disclosure for a lookup tool.
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?
One compact sentence with the input-to-output mapping front-loaded and the example parenthesized. Nothing is wasted and no reading is required past the first clause.
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?
For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the critical missing pieces: accepted input format, example, output CRS, and data source. Only edge-case behavior (no match, multiple matches) is absent, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the single 'query' parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does so by defining the expected composition ('Calle + número') and giving a full example including city, which is exactly the format detail the bare schema lacks.
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 precise transformation: street + number becomes WGS84 coordinates using the municipal street map, with a concrete example ('Calle Colón 1, Valencia'). No sibling tool does anything comparable, so no differentiation is needed and the agent can identify this tool immediately.
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?
The example implicitly shows when the tool applies (address-style input) and hints at the expected format, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it, when not to, or what to do with ambiguous/unmatched addresses. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.