geocoding-mcp

geocode

Convert a location query into latitude, longitude, and address details via the Nominatim (OpenStreetMap) API.

Instructions

Forward geocode a location query using the Nominatim (OpenStreetMap) API. Returns latitude, longitude, and address details for matching places.

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": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "geocode"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	Yes	Free-form search query, e.g. '221B Baker Street, London'
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return (1-40, default 5)
`bounded`	No	Restrict results to within the viewbox (requires viewbox)
`viewbox`	No	Bounding box to boost results: 'x1,y1,x2,y2' (min_lon,min_lat,max_lon,max_lat)
`countrycodes`	No	Comma-separated ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes to filter results, e.g. 'gb,us'
`addressdetails`	No	Include structured address breakdown in results (default true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided so the description bears the full load. It discloses the upstream API, which is useful, but says nothing about rate-limit policy, attribution requirements, ambiguity of free-form queries, or how multiple matches are returned.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste. It is front-loaded with the operation and follows with the return shape.

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 6-parameter external-API tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the agent the operation and return fields but omits operational concerns (rate limits, error/zero-result behavior) that an agent would benefit from knowing before calling.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including defaults and ranges. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states.

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 (forward geocode) and resource (location query) with the underlying API named (Nominatim/OpenStreetMap). With no siblings to differentiate from, this is clear but stops short of the crispness of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of rate limits, no suggestion of alternatives for the reverse-geocoding case. The description is purely definitional.

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

geocodeC