resolve_placeResolve any venue name to the canonical place using alias and fuzzy matching.
Canonicalize a venue name via place aliases and fuzzy match. ($0.10; API key required)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| place | No | ||
| query | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| place | No | Canonical place record. | |
| query | Yes | ||
| resolved | Yes | ||
| candidates | No | ||
| matched_via | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.28.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations, including the API key requirement, a $0.10 cost, and the fuzzy-match mechanism. This helps an agent anticipate side conditions before invoking the 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?
The entire description is one compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the most critical operational caveats (cost and API key). There is no wasted wording.
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?
Despite having an output schema and safety annotations, the description leaves a major gap: with three optional parameters and no parameter descriptions, an agent cannot confidently determine which input to provide. The description is too sparse to support correct invocation in all plausible cases.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the roles of 'name', 'place', or 'query'. Although 'venue name' hints that 'name' is likely the core input, it is unclear how the three parameters relate and when each should be supplied.
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 and resource: 'Canonicalize a venue name via place aliases and fuzzy match.' This clearly conveys the operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as resolve_person, so it stops short of full 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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_places, resolve_person, or search. The only usage-related details are the API key requirement and cost, which are prerequisites rather than selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.