Divar Intelligence MCP

dv_geocode

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find public landmarks or places near a map center using a text query. Use it for nearby location discovery, not exact personal address lookup.

Instructions

Find a public landmark/place near a map centre; not an exact personal address lookup.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "dv_geocode"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lat`	No
`lon`	No
`query`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Default
`data`	Yes
`warnings`	No
`schema_version`	No	1.0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope by limiting results to public landmarks/places rather than personal addresses. It does not describe return behavior, coordinate behavior, or limitations beyond that scope.

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 a single compact sentence with the key scope constraint front-loaded. Every clause carries useful information, and there is no filler.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has an output schema and safety annotations, which reduce the description's burden. However, with 0% schema description coverage across three parameters, the description leaves important invocation details undocumented, especially the meaning and constraints of lat, lon, and query.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It implies that lat/lon define the map centre and that 'query' is a landmark/place search, but it does not explain coordinate defaults, valid ranges, coordinate system, or query semantics such as max length.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: finding a public landmark/place near a map centre. It also clarifies the scope by excluding exact personal address lookup. However, it does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as dv_nearby, dv_locate, or dv_place_mapping.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives a negative usage condition ('not an exact personal address lookup') and implies usage when searching for public landmarks near a map centre. It does not name alternatives or explain when to use this tool instead of sibling geospatial tools.

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