Search standardized place names to obtain place IDs, jurisdictions, and coordinates, or retrieve a place description by its ID.
Standardized places. Actions: search (name → place ids, jurisdictions, coordinates) · get (place description by id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| placeId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful behavioral context about results (place ids, jurisdictions, coordinates, description), but does not mention limitations, pagination, or other runtime behavior.
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 compact and front-loads the core concept before enumerating actions. The use of an arrow notation for search mapping is efficient, though a slightly more structured format could improve scannability.
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?
The description covers the primary use cases and return value hints, which is helpful given no output schema. But it omits the 'count' parameter and does not describe any edge cases or constraints, leaving the tool incompletely specified for an agent.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description must clarify parameter meaning, and it does for action, query (as 'name'), and placeId. However, the 'count' parameter is entirely undocumented, leaving one of four parameters unexplained.
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 as 'places' and specifies two concrete actions, 'search' and 'get', with their input-to-output mappings. This distinguishes it from general-purpose siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.
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 implies when to use each action: 'search' by name and 'get' by id. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools like 'person', 'relationship', or 'source'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.