Postcode Context Great Britain

Official

by postcodecontext

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Remote

Enrich Bulk Great Britain Postcodes Cohort

enrich_postcodes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Batch-enrich 1–50 Great Britain postcodes with demographic, economic, and spatial profiles, returning brief summaries by default to limit context; request full metrics when needed.

Instructions

Bulk demographic, economic, and spatial lookup for 1 to 50 Great Britain postcodes. Returns brief profile by default (~80 tokens per postcode) to prevent context blow-up; use view="full" when all 113 metrics are needed. Cost-effective for 6 to 50 postcodes ($0.050 flat fee). For 1 postcode use lookup_postcode ($0.005); for 2 to 5 postcodes use compare_postcodes ($0.010). Do not use when detailed side-by-side comparative rankings are required (use compare_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": "enrich_postcodes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`view`	No	View slice for each postcode in the batch results: "brief" (or "summary"/"ai", ~80 tokens per postcode, default for batch calls to prevent context blow-up), "full" (complete 113-metric dataset per postcode, explicitly requested when all metrics needed), "property", "demographics", "education", "healthcare", "transit", or "services".	brief
`postcodes`	Yes	Array of 1 to 50 Great Britain postcodes to enrich. Cost-effective for 6 to 50 postcodes ($0.050 flat fee). For 1 postcode use lookup_postcode ($0.005); for 2 to 5 postcodes use compare_postcodes ($0.010).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`results`	Yes
`_billing`	No
`_licensing`	No
`_disclaimer`	No
`_attribution`	Yes
`cohort_summary`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: the default brief view exists to prevent context blow-up (~80 tokens per postcode), full view is 113 metrics, and pricing is a flat $0.050 for batches. Remaining gaps are minor, e.g. what happens if one postcode in the batch is invalid.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences, each carrying a distinct decision (capability, default payload size, cost, routing). Some redundancy with the schema's parameter descriptions keeps it from a 5, but there is no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only batch tool with an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: scope limits, default vs full views, cost, and sibling routing. Return-value shape is correctly left to the output schema.

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% and the schema's own property text already explains the brief/full views, token cost, and the 6-50 pricing tier almost verbatim. The description largely repeats that text rather than adding new semantics, so it sits at the baseline 3.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (bulk lookup), resource (Great Britain postcodes), data domain (demographic, economic, spatial) and hard scope (1 to 50). It explicitly names the siblings it supersedes and when, so an agent can distinguish it from lookup_postcode and compare_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?

Routing rules are explicit and quantified: 1 postcode -> lookup_postcode ($0.005), 2-5 -> compare_postcodes ($0.010), 6-50 -> this tool ($0.050 flat). It also states an exclusion (do not use when detailed side-by-side comparative rankings are required), leaving essentially nothing to inference.

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

Deploy Server