reverse_geocodeResolve a WGS84 latitude and longitude point to its Argentine province, department, and municipality. Use for reverse geocoding within Argentina.
Find the province, department and municipality that contain a WGS84 point (lat, lon). Only points inside Argentina resolve.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | Latitude in decimal degrees, e.g. -34.6037 | |
| lon | Yes | Longitude in decimal degrees, e.g. -58.3816 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description's genuinely additive piece is the Argentina coverage limit, but it does not disclose whether an out-of-coverage point yields an error, null, or empty result — the main behavioral unknown for this tool.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the coverage caveat immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly assumes responsibility for naming the returned fields (province, department, municipality). What remains uncovered is failure behavior outside Argentina, which an agent would need to handle the common error path.
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 coverage is 100%, with ranges and example values already documented, so baseline would be 3. The description adds the coordinate datum (WGS84), which is real information the schema does not state and matters for correct input formatting.
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 uses a specific verb+resource pairing ("find the province, department and municipality that contain a WGS84 point") and names the three administrative levels returned. This is immediately distinguishable from the sibling search_* tools, which are forward lookups rather than point-in-polygon resolution.
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?
"Only points inside Argentina resolve" gives a clear scope boundary that tells the agent when this tool will not work, which is strong usage context. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use normalize_address for street addresses) or stating what to do for out-of-scope coordinates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.