catastro_coordinates_from_referenceRetrieve the address and coordinates linked to a Spanish cadastral reference (14 or 20 characters), using official Catastro data to identify a property.
Get the address and coordinates of a cadastral reference.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cadastral_reference | Yes | 14 or 20 character cadastral reference |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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, and openWorldHint, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing on top of that: no note on external-service dependency or latency, no handling of invalid/unmatched references, and no behavioral nuance beyond what the annotations and output schema already convey.
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 short sentence with the verb, output, and input all front-loaded; there is no filler, hedging, or redundancy to trim.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. What is missing for this one-param tool is the disambiguation from its inverse sibling, which the description never addresses; otherwise it is adequate for such a simple lookup.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the '14 or 20 character cadastral reference' format, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no syntax, normalization, or format guidance beyond restating 'cadastral reference', which is the baseline-3 case.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and two concrete resources ('address and coordinates') scoped to a 'cadastral reference' input, so the direction of the lookup is unambiguous. It does not name its exact inverse sibling, catastro_reference_from_coordinates, so an agent must infer the distinction from the phrasing alone.
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 only implied: the phrasing signals a forward lookup (reference in, address/coordinates out), which is the natural counterpart to the coordinate-to-reference sibling. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over catastro_reference_from_coordinates or catastro_property_details, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.