Find UK addresses around a WGS84 point by providing latitude, longitude, and radius in meters. Returns matching addresses within that radius for geospatial analysis.
Addresses within a radius of a WGS84 point
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes | ||
| tool | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| radiusMeters | 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 provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and side-effect expectations. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the spatial operation, such as result limits (though a limit parameter exists), handling of no results, or coordinate system specifics beyond the WGS84 mention. It does not contradict annotations but adds minimal behavioral insight.
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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While it is under-specified, the conciseness itself is appropriate for the minimal information provided, though it sacrifices completeness.
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?
For a tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, expected output structure, or any usage context. The agent cannot reliably formulate a correct request without inspecting the schema or external documentation. Even with annotations, the description fails to provide essential operational context.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not explain lat, lon, radiusMeters, limit, or their units and constraints. The only hint is 'WGS84 point', implying lat/lon coordinates, but no relationship between parameters and the operation is clarified. This is a significant gap for a 5-parameter tool.
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 the core function: returning addresses within a radius of a WGS84 point. It identifies the resource (addresses) and the spatial operation (within a radius), which is clear, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like os_places_nearest or os_places_within without additional context. It is not a tautology and conveys the essential purpose.
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 such as os_places_nearest, os_places_within, or os_places_by_postcode. There is no mention of scenarios where radius-based search is preferred, nor any exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.