Retrieve addresses located inside a polygon boundary. Provide a polygon to query UK geospatial data and return matching addresses, with an optional limit.
Addresses within a polygon
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| polygon | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| results | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior, but the description adds no additional context. It does not disclose the polygon format, any limitations, or how results are ordered, providing no value beyond the annotations.
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 extremely concise, with a single clear phrase. It is front-loaded with the core concept and contains no extraneous words. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, though that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one.
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 is far too sparse for a tool with a complex polygon parameter and no schema guidance. It does not explain the polygon format, the meaning of the limit parameter, or the output structure, leaving an agent without enough information to call the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing input semantics.
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 description coverage, the description carries full responsibility for explaining parameters. It only mentions 'polygon' in passing but does not explain its required format (GeoJSON, WKT, etc.) or what the 'limit' parameter does. This is critically insufficient for an agent to construct a valid request.
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 states a clear resource (addresses) and operation (within a polygon), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like os_places_within, which likely performs a similar function, so it loses a point for missing differentiation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.