lookup_buildingConvert an NYC street address into its official BBL tax lot and BIN building ID using NYC Planning GeoSearch, so renters can check public records for a specific property.
Resolve an NYC address to its official BBL (tax lot) and BIN (building ID) via NYC Planning GeoSearch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | NYC street address with house number, ideally with borough or ZIP, e.g. '2835 Barker Ave, Bronx' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile and the fact that it hits external data. The description usefully adds that the lookup goes through NYC Planning GeoSearch and what identifiers come back, which is real context beyond the annotations. It stops short of noting failure/no-match behavior or rate limits on the external service.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and outcome, with no filler. Every clause (address, BBL, BIN, GeoSearch) carries information.
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, the description does name the returned identifiers and gloss them, which is the key completeness need for a lookup tool. It omits edge behavior (no match, multiple matches, malformed address) and the external-service dependency's practical consequences, but covers the essentials for calling it.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single address parameter already documents format and an example ('2835 Barker Ave, Bronx'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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 (resolve) plus the resource (NYC address) and the concrete outputs (BBL tax lot, BIN building ID) via a named upstream service. This is far more specific than a tautology, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings building_report or red_flags, so an agent must infer the relationship.
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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative comparison. It does not tell the agent whether this is a prerequisite step for building_report, or what to do if the address is ambiguous. Only the purpose implies usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.