Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vietnam-address-mcp

vietnam-address-mcp

by amItuff
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Convert an old (pre-2025) ward/district/province to the new unit

convert_legacy_address
Read-onlyIdempotent

Converts split legacy Vietnamese address fields (ward, district, province) into the current two-level structure, flagging split or ambiguous wards with confidence and alternatives.

Instructions

Converts a pre-July-2025 administrative address given as separate fields to the new 2-level structure. Prefer this over normalize_address when the parts are already split (e.g. database columns). Đổi xã/phường/huyện/tỉnh cũ sang đơn vị hành chính mới. If the old ward was divided between several new wards, the result has confidence "split_default" and lists every alternative. Omitting the district works when the ward name is unique in the province; otherwise the result is "ambiguous".

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": {
      "province": "<province>"
    },
    "name": "convert_legacy_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wardNoOld ward/commune, e.g. "Phường Bến Nghé". Omit only for the five island districts (e.g. Côn Đảo).
streetNoStreet/house number, returned unchanged inside the formatted address.
districtNoOld district, e.g. "Quận 1" or "Huyện Kỳ Anh". Optional but recommended.
provinceYesOld province, e.g. "Tỉnh Bình Dương" or "Hà Giang".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the description correctly focuses on result behavior instead: 'split_default' confidence with all alternatives listed when a ward is divided, 'ambiguous' when district is omitted and the name is not unique, and street returned unchanged. It stops short of describing the full response shape (though no output schema exists) and says nothing about locale/format of inputs beyond examples.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose and the alternative-tool routing rule, followed by the language-neutral Vietnamese restatement and then edge-case results. The Vietnamese sentence duplicates the first sentence in another language, which is defensible for input matching but is technically repeated content.

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?

For a 4-parameter conversion tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing pieces: what the confidence values mean and when ambiguous or split results occur. Only marginal gaps remain, such as the overall result structure beyond the formatted address and confidence field.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the field meanings are already documented; the description adds value by explaining the interaction between district omission and ward-name uniqueness, and that street flows through unchanged into the formatted output. The island-district exception for omitting ward is repeated from the schema rather than extended.

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?

States a specific verb plus resource with scope: converts a pre-July-2025 administrative address supplied as separate fields into the new 2-level structure. It explicitly distinguishes itself from normalize_address by input shape (already-split parts), so an agent can choose without opening the schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit routing rule: prefer this over normalize_address when parts are already split, e.g. database columns. It also states conditions around omitting district (works when the ward is unique in the province, otherwise 'ambiguous'), which is genuine when-to-use guidance rather than an inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools