foran_find_locationConvert an address or area name into coordinates and check whether Foran delivers to that location.
Turn an address or area name (e.g. 'Precinct 10 Bahria Town', 'Qasimabad Hyderabad') into coordinates and check whether Foran delivers there.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Address, area or landmark. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call returns coordinates and a deliverability verdict, which is useful behavioral context given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about no-match handling, ambiguous/multiple matches, or service failures.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, with the secondary deliverability check and inline examples all earning their place. No filler or redundancy.
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?
For a one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description conveys input expectations, the two outputs (coordinates, deliverability), and the real-world scope. It is nearly complete, missing only failure/ambiguity behavior, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.
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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Address, area or landmark', so the baseline would be a 3. The description goes beyond it with two concrete example queries in local naming conventions ('Precinct 10 Bahria Town', 'Qasimabad Hyderabad'), which clarify the expected granularity and format of the query string.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('turn an address or area name into coordinates') plus a second function ('check whether Foran delivers there'), which no sibling tool performs. It does not explicitly contrast itself with adjacent tools like foran_list_stores or foran_my_addresses, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
Usage is implied — an agent can infer this is a pre-order deliverability/geocoding step — but there is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as checking saved addresses via foran_my_addresses. The two examples hint at expected input, but routing guidance is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.