Sky Compass MCP

get_place_coordinates

Convert a place name into latitude and longitude coordinates for location-based sky observations, compass bearings, altitude checks, and horizon visibility calculations.

Instructions

Resolve a place name and return its latitude and longitude.

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": {
      "place_name": "<place_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_place_coordinates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`place_name`	Yes	Place name to resolve, e.g. 'Bhidi, Deoli, Wardha, Maharashtra, India'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does add value by naming the return values (latitude and longitude) in the absence of an output schema. However, it says nothing about ambiguous or unresolvable place names, whether multiple matches are collapsed into one best result, or what a failure looks like.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and ending with the return values. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, stating the returned coordinates is nearly sufficient. The only meaningful omission is behavior on ambiguous or unknown place names, which matters for a geocoder but is a minor gap overall.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented with a concrete hierarchical example ('Bhidi, Deoli, Wardha, Maharashtra, India'). The description adds no further meaning beyond that, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('a place name') plus the returned values (latitude and longitude), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling locate_by_coordinates, which is the inverse geocoding operation and the most likely source of confusion.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should be called when it holds a place name and needs coordinates. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as locate_by_coordinates or locate_celestial_object.

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

Deploy Server