Skip to main content
Glama
mcpwright
by mcpwright

Find ZIPs for a place

find_zips
Read-only

Identify ZIP codes (ZCTAs) that overlap a named U.S. place. Add an optional state for disambiguation; results show each ZIP's coverage percentage.

Instructions

Reverse lookup: the ZIPs (ZCTAs) that fall within a named place.

`place`: a U.S. place name — an incorporated city/town or a census-designated
place (e.g. 'Cambridge', 'West Hollywood'); the Census descriptor is optional
('Cambridge' and 'Cambridge city' both work). `state`: optional 2-letter USPS
code or full state name to disambiguate (many places share a name). Returns
the ZCTAs intersecting that place, ranked by `coverage_pct` — the share of
each ZCTA's land that lies within the place. This is approximate: ZCTAs don't
nest inside places, so a ZIP may span several places and vice versa. Built on
the public 2020 Census ZCTA-to-Place relationship file (no API key needed).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
placeYes
stateNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesThe place name searched for
stateNoThe 2-letter USPS state filter applied, if any
matchesYesZCTAs intersecting the place, sorted by coverage_pct descending. Empty places (no match) raise an error instead.
vintageYesCensus geography year of the ZCTA-to-place relationship (2020)
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds valuable context beyond those: the approximate nature of ZCTA/place relationships, the ranking by coverage_pct, and the data source. It also clarifies that no API key is needed. This enriches the behavioral understanding without contradicting the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: the opening sentence states the core function, followed by parameter details, ranking, caveats, and data source in a logical flow. Every sentence contributes value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, output ranking, limitations (approximate), and data provenance. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters in detail: place is a named US city/town/CDP with examples, and state is optional with formats. It also clarifies the meaning of coverage_pct in relation to the output, which goes beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Reverse lookup: the ZIPs (ZCTAs) that fall within a named place.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_zip (which presumably does the forward lookup) and other data tools. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you have a U.S. place name and need the intersecting ZCTAs. It notes that state disambiguates, implying when to supply that parameter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mcpwright/census-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server