Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Postcode Context Great Britain

Postcode Context Great Britain

Official
by postcodecontext
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Get Data Provenance & Statutory Attribution Register

get_data_attribution
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve official statutory attribution, Crown copyright, Royal Mail Gridlink sublicence, and Open Government Licence v3.0 metadata for all contributing Great Britain postcode data providers.

Instructions

$0.00 USDC reference tool (no payment or authentication required; subject to Terms of Service): Retrieve official statutory attribution statements, Crown copyright notices, Royal Mail Gridlink sublicence details, and Open Government Licence v3.0 metadata across all 19 contributing data providers (ONS, OS, Royal Mail, HM Land Registry, Registers of Scotland, MHCLG, Ofcom, Scottish Government, Welsh Government, DfE, CQC, PHS, NWSSP, DfT, ORR).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_data_attribution"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for adding information annotations cannot express: no payment, no authentication, and that use is subject to Terms of Service. It does not say what the returned register looks like or whether it is a single blob across all providers.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loaded well with the cost/authentication preconditions, but the second half is a flat enumeration of 15 named agencies inside a long single sentence. It also claims '19 contributing data providers' while listing only 15, a minor internal inconsistency that adds noise rather than clarity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only metadata tool with rich annotations, the description covers what is retrieved and the licensing context an agent needs to cite sources correctly. The remaining gap is the absence of any output description (no output schema exists here), so the agent cannot anticipate the register's shape.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty with additionalProperties=false, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies an unfiltered bulk retrieval across all providers.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a concrete resource: statutory attribution statements, Crown copyright notices, Gridlink sublicence details, and OGL v3.0 metadata. That is clearly distinct from the postcode/demographic lookup siblings, though the description never names or contrasts them directly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it is for licence/attribution lookups, and the '$0.00 USDC, no payment or authentication required' note tells it there is no cost barrier. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no mention that this is typically called alongside the data-fetching siblings.

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