Skip to main content
Glama

Find a street address

geocode_address
Read-onlyIdempotent

Street address -> coordinates: "1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View".

Instructions

Street address -> coordinates: "1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View".

The forward counterpart to address_at, and finer than geocode, which
answers at city/neighborhood granularity and never at a doorway. The
first comma splits the street from the city; a bare integer at either end
of the street part is the house number ("1600 Amphitheatre Parkway",
"Hauptstraße 5"). Pass `number`/`street`/`city` instead if you already
have the parts. Unit/apartment numbers are not parsed.

A street part written as a crossing with no house number — "5th Ave &
42nd St, New York, NY", also "A and B", "A at B", "A / B", "A @ B" — is
routed to geocode_intersection with the same city and returns that tool's
answer ({"results": [{lat, lon, streets}], "anchor", "note"}) plus
"delegated_to": "geocode_intersection". "and"/"at" only split when both
halves look like streets (a street-type word or an ordinal each), so
"Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Blvd, Cleveland" is still one street.

The city is resolved first and its boundary bounds the search, so a city
that resolves to no boundary — or to something far larger than a city,
like a state — returns an empty list plus a note rather than a scan. If a
same-named runner-up in the same country supplies the boundary instead,
the note names it — the answer is never silently about a different city,
and never about one in another country. Check `anchor` (name, country,
admin_context) to see which one it was. Street names match in either
spelling (Parkway/Pkwy, West/W, NW/Northwest).

Returns {"results": [{number, street, unit, postcode, country,
distance_m, lat, lon}, ...], "anchor": {name, id, country,
admin_context}, "match": "exact"|"nearest_number"|"street"},
deduplicated to distinct number+street+postcode and nearest the city's
own point first. More matches than `limit` adds "truncated",
"distinct_in_range" and a note. `match` is absent only when no street
was scanned at all (no street name, no city, or an unresolved anchor).

A requested number with no address point is never interpolated: when the
street has other numbered points, `results` holds the real nearest known
numbers bracketing the miss instead (`match: "nearest_number"`, each row
its own genuine coordinates, plus a note naming the miss and neighbors)
— never a synthesized coordinate for the missing number. No usable
numbers on the street falls to `match: "street"`, today's empty-plus-note.

Coverage is alpha: 39 countries, no UK, Ireland, India or China. An empty
list is a valid answer and always carries a note saying whether the
country is uncovered or the street simply wasn't found.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNo
limitNo
queryNo
numberNo
streetNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.10.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, but the description adds substantial behavior: alpha coverage of 39 countries excluding UK/Ireland/India/China, that empty is a valid answer always carrying a note, that missing numbers are never interpolated, and delegation semantics. It stops short of describing auth or rate limits, but the operational constraints it does disclose are rich.

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?

The core mapping and example are front-loaded, and the remaining paragraphs each carry distinct, non-redundant rules (parsing, delegation, boundary bounding, match modes, coverage). It is long, but dense with earned detail rather than padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given an output schema exists, return values needn't be documented, yet the description usefully explains the match modes and anchor/note fields needed to interpret results. For a complex, edge-case-heavy geocoder, the description covers the parsing, fallback, and coverage cases an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains query-string parsing (comma splits street/city, bare integers are house numbers, units are unparsed), the number/street/city alternative inputs, and references `limit` via truncation behavior. `limit`'s own bounds and default are left to the schema, keeping it just under a 5.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource mapping ("Street address -> coordinates") plus a worked example, and explicitly positions itself against siblings: "the forward counterpart to address_at" and "finer than geocode, which answers at city/neighborhood granularity." An agent can distinguish it from geocode, geocode_intersection, and address_at without opening any schema.

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?

States the alternatives explicitly and the conditions that select them: pass number/street/city "instead if you already have the parts," and crossing-form queries are "routed to geocode_intersection." It also clarifies granularity boundaries versus geocode, giving clear when-to-use/when-to-defer guidance.

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