Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Postcode Context Great Britain

Postcode Context Great Britain

Official
by postcodecontext
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Compare Great Britain Postcodes Side-by-Side

compare_postcodes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare 2–5 Great Britain postcodes side by side across affluence, safety, housing cost per m², broadband, and family suitability, with ranking and optional brief profiles for compact context.

Instructions

Use when you need to directly contrast 2 to 5 Great Britain postcodes across affluence, safety, housing cost per m², broadband, and family suitability. Returns full profiles by default; use view="brief" (~80 tokens per postcode) to keep context compact alongside the comparison ranking. Do not use for single postcode inspection (use lookup_postcode) or bulk batches of >5 postcodes (use enrich_postcodes).

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": {
      "postcodes": "<postcodes>"
    },
    "name": "compare_postcodes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNoView slice for returned postcode profiles: "full" (complete profile per postcode, default), "brief" (or "summary"/"ai", ~80 tokens per postcode, recommended to minimize context usage alongside comparison ranking), "property", "demographics", "education", "healthcare", "transit", or "services".full
postcodesYesList of 2 to 5 distinct Great Britain postcodes to compare side-by-side (e.g. ["SW1A 1AA", "BB7 3BB"]). Must contain at least 2 distinct postcodes in England, Scotland, or Wales.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_billingNo
postcodesYes
_licensingNo
_disclaimerNo
_attributionYes
comparison_synthesisYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior in a closed world, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new operational context: full profiles by default, a rough token cost (~80 tokens per postcode for brief view), and the existence of a comparison ranking in the response. It doesn't cover error handling for invalid or non-GB postcodes, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then return-shape guidance, then exclusions. No filler and no repetition of schema mechanics.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation here, and the two parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description supplies the remaining decision-relevant facts: input bounds, alternatives for out-of-scope cases, and a context-budget option.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's view advice largely restates what the schema already says about the brief/summary/ai views and the ~80-token estimate, adding only the framing that the brief view pairs with the comparison ranking.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('directly contrast 2 to 5 Great Britain postcodes') and enumerates the comparison dimensions: affluence, safety, housing cost per m², broadband, and family suitability. An agent can distinguish it from lookup_postcode and enrich_postcodes without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use conditions (2-5 postcodes, multi-dimension contrast) and explicit when-not-to-use cases naming both alternatives: single postcode inspection goes to lookup_postcode, batches above 5 go to enrich_postcodes. It also advises using view="brief" when context budget matters.

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