Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
georef-mcp

georef-mcp

by diego-prieri
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Search localities

search_localities
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find Argentine localities by name, optionally filtered by province or department, to resolve place names against official BAHRA geographic data.

Instructions

Search localities (cities, towns, settlements from the BAHRA dataset) by name, optionally within a province and department.

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": {
      "nombre": "<nombre>"
    },
    "name": "search_localities"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
maxNoMaximum results to return (1–50)
nombreYesLocality name, e.g. "Tandil"
provinciaNoProvince name or id to filter by, e.g. "Córdoba", "caba" or "14"
departamentoNoDepartment name or id to filter by

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the dataset provenance, which is mild context, but says nothing about result truncation, ranking, or matching behavior (exact vs partial name match).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource, source dataset, primary key, and optional filters; no wasted words.

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 simple 4-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and its filter scope. The only real gap is sibling disambiguation against search_municipalities.

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% with examples for nombre and provincia, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the name/province/department filters and omits the 'max' result-count parameter entirely, adding little beyond structured fields.

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 (search) and resource (localities), and disambiguates the resource as cities/towns/settlements from the BAHRA dataset. It does not differentiate from the very similar sibling search_municipalities, which an agent would need to choose between.

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?

"Optionally within a province and department" implies when the filter parameters are useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this rather than search_municipalities or search_departments, nor any prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools