Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• geocodeB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (FeatureCollection GeoJSON) and the data source (IGN Géoplateforme API), but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention any rate limits, geographic scope (likely limited to France), or other behavioral traits beyond the return format.

  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?

  The description is extremely concise: one sentence for the main action and one for the output. It front-loads the core purpose with no wasted words.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the tool has 18 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain typical usage, parameter interactions, or the structure of the returned FeatureCollection. It lacks completeness for a complex geocoding tool.

  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%, so the schema already documents all 18 parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, only stating it geocodes a string. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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?

  The description clearly states the tool geocodes a string (address, place, or cadastral parcel) via the IGN Géoplateforme API and returns a FeatureCollection GeoJSON. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like geocode_reverse or geocode_capabilities, though the forward geocoding purpose is implicit.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool or when not to use it. It does not mention alternative tools for reverse geocoding or capabilities retrieval, which would be helpful given the sibling tools exist.

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

• geocode_reverseB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool returns the closest addresses/places/parcels and accepts point or geometry input, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, default behavior (e.g., index default), or error handling. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 description is a single sentence, very concise with no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and API source. However, for a tool with 15 parameters, a bulleted list of return types or key options could improve scannability.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the complexity (15 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks explanation of default index (address), the difference between point and geometry search, or what the results contain. It is moderately complete but leaves gaps that the rich parameter schema partially fills.

  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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds overall context (e.g., searchgeom can be Circle) but does not provide new meaning beyond the detailed parameter descriptions in the schema. It rephrases but does not deepen understanding.

  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?

  The description clearly identifies the tool as reverse geocoding via the IGN API, specifying it returns addresses, places, and parcels closest to a geographic point or geometry. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., geocode, which likely does forward geocoding) by explicitly stating 'reverse geocoding'.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to siblings (geocode, geocode_capabilities) or when not to use it. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or context for selection.

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

• geocode_capabilitiesA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided. The description indicates it returns data but does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive. For a simple read operation, the transparency is adequate but minimal.

  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 description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It could be slightly more structured, but it efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

  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?

  Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the main aspects of what is returned, though the trailing 'etc.' leaves some vagueness.

  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?

  There are no parameters (0 params), so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the output contains (operations, indexes, categories), which adds value beyond the empty schema.

  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?

  The description clearly states the tool returns capabilities of the Géoplateforme API, listing specific elements like operations, indexes, and POI categories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools 'geocode' and 'geocode_reverse', which perform actual geocoding.

  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?

  The description implies the tool is for obtaining API capabilities, likely before using geocode or geocode_reverse. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria.

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