Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-map-server

mcp-map-server

by ganyu123456
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

map_geocode

Convert a structured address into geographic coordinates. Returns latitude, longitude, administrative division, and adcode for weather queries.

Instructions

地理编码：将结构化地址（如'北京市朝阳区阜通东大街6号'）转换为经纬度坐标。返回坐标、行政区划和 adcode（可用于天气查询）。

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "map_geocode"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNo可选，限定城市名或 citycode，提高准确度
addressYes要查询的地址文本
platformNoMap platform to use. Defaults to 'amap'.amap

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return values (coordinates, admin divisions, adcode) and notes adcode's use for weather queries. However, it omits details on authentication, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 concise sentence with a brief output note. No redundant phrases, but could include a second sentence for usage context without losing efficiency.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description partially explains return fields but lacks format details, error cases, or comparisons to sibling tools. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 an example address and adcode context but does not elaborate on city format, platform differences, or parameter constraints beyond the 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 explicitly states the tool converts structured addresses to coordinates, with a clear example. It specifies the return fields (coordinates, administrative divisions, adcode) and distinguishes from reverse geocoding implicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like map_reverse_geocode or map_search_poi. The description only implies usage for address-to-coordinate conversion without context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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