Autocomplete a partial street address to get matching address suggestions. Provide a country code to narrow results.
Autocomplete a partial street address. Returns matching address suggestions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| countryCode | No | Country code filter (default: 'US') | |
| partialAddress | Yes | Partial street address to autocomplete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the core behavior — 'Returns matching address suggestions' — which signals a read-only lookup. However, it discloses nothing beyond that: no mention of a live external API dependency, no result-size or granularity limits, and no behavior when no matches are found.
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?
Two short sentences totaling 11 words, with the primary verb and object front-loaded in the first sentence. Every word earns its place; there is no boilerplate, redundancy, or filler.
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?
For a low-complexity tool (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic call shape and return behavior. But because there is no output schema, the vague 'matching address suggestions' leaves the return format unstated, and no guidance routes the agent among the overlapping address siblings. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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%: both partialAddress and countryCode are already described in the schema, including the default 'US' for countryCode. The description merely echoes the phrase 'partial street address' and adds no parameter-level meaning, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb ('Autocomplete') and a specific resource ('partial street address'), and clarifies the output as 'matching address suggestions.' This is unambiguous and implicitly contrasts with the verification and lookup siblings. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly name or differentiate against siblings like postgrid_verify_address or postgrid_lookup_city_state.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely related siblings postgrid_verify_address, postgrid_verify_addresses_batch, or postgrid_lookup_city_state. No preconditions, no exclusions, and no alternatives are mentioned; the only usage context is the implied scenario of having a partial address, which the tool name already conveys.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.