Catalunya Open Data MCP

bcn.resolve_place

bcn_resolve_place

Convert a Barcelona place name to WGS84 coordinates using open data. Use before querying geographic resources for location-based searches. Optionally filter by bounding box or place type.

Instructions

Resolve a Barcelona place name to candidate WGS84 coordinates using only source-bounded Open Data BCN DataStore resources. Use this before bcn_query_resource_geo when the user gives a named place instead of lat/lon. Supports optional bbox and kind filters for facilities, landmarks, streets, neighborhoods, and districts.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "bcn_resolve_place"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bbox`	No
`kinds`	No
`limit`	No	Rows to return. Server maximum: 100.
`query`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`error`	No
`provenance`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.4Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it returns candidate coordinates using source-bounded resources, implying geocoding with multiple possibilities. Lacks details on error handling, no-match behavior, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds necessary context without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Has output schema to document returns. Covers core geocoding function, filters, and usage in relation to sibling. Could mention default behavior or handling of ambiguous queries, but overall adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 25% (only limit described). Description adds meaning for bbox and kinds by listing filter types (facilities, landmarks, etc.) but does not detail all schema properties like bbox structure. Partially compensates for low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool resolves Barcelona place names to WGS84 coordinates using specific Open Data BCN resources. It distinguishes from sibling bcn_query_resource_geo by noting it is for named places instead of lat/lon.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly instructs use before bcn_query_resource_geo when user provides a named place. Mentions optional bbox and kind filters, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative sibling references beyond the one.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.