commune_infoRetrieve key administrative and geographic data for a French commune by name or INSEE code, including population, postcodes, department, region, surface, and center coordinates.
Population, postcodes, département, région, surface and center coordinates of a French commune, by name or INSEE code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Commune name or 5-char INSEE code (e.g. 'Lyon' or '69123') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the outputs and the accepted query forms, which is helpful, but it does not explain behavior for ambiguous names, partial matches, or non-existent communes. This is acceptable for a simple read-only lookup but leaves some behavioral gaps.
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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the returned data fields and ends with the input key. Every word contributes useful information, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 tool with one documented parameter and no output schema, the description gives a solid overview of the return fields and how to query. It is complete enough for a straightforward lookup, though it could mention matching behavior for ambiguous names or the response format to be fully airtight.
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 for the single parameter is 100%, and the schema's query description already explains the accepted values with examples. The main description adds context by showing what the result will contain, but it does not need to elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
The description clearly identifies the resource (French communes) and the specific data returned (population, postcodes, département, région, surface, center coordinates), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like geocode_address or reverse_geocode. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the intent is unambiguous.
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 description conveys when to use the tool by stating the input key ('by name or INSEE code') and the type of information returned. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with any sibling tools or state when not to use it, leaving the alternative-routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.