Skip to main content
Glama
Postcode Context Great Britain

Postcode Context Great Britain

Official

Lookup Great Britain Postcode Intelligence Profile

lookup_postcode
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve demographic, property, EPC, broadband, and socio-economic context for a Great Britain unit postcode, returning a full profile or concise brief view.

Instructions

Use when you need demographic, property, EPC energy efficiency, broadband, or socio-economic context for a Great Britain unit postcode (England, Scotland, Wales). Returns full profile by default; use view="brief" (~80 tokens) for low-token, concise briefings when managing context budget. Do not use for non-GB postcodes (e.g. Northern Ireland BT) or when comparing multiple postcodes simultaneously (use compare_postcodes instead).

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": {
      "postcode": "<postcode>"
    },
    "name": "lookup_postcode"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNoView slice to return: "full" (complete 113-metric profile, default), "brief" (or "summary"/"ai", ~80 tokens summary with AI affluence tier & persona, recommended for token efficiency), "property" (prices & EPC), "demographics" (Census & IMD deciles), "education" (or "schools"), "healthcare" (or "health"), "transit" (or "transport"), or "services" (or "infrastructure").full
excludeNoOptional domain(s) to exclude: "schools", "healthcare", "transit" as a comma-separated string (e.g. "schools, healthcare") or an array of strings (e.g. ["schools", "healthcare"]). Note: exclude only applies when view="full"; ignored if a specific view slice is selected.
postcodeYesGreat Britain unit postcode to analyze (e.g. SW1A 1AA, BB7 3BB, M1 1AE, EH1 1YZ, CF10 1EP). Space-optional, case-insensitive. Covers England, Scotland, and Wales.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo
transitNo
_billingNo
locationYes
_licensingNo
confidenceNo
match_typeNo
_disclaimerNo
_attributionNo
summary_for_aiNo
landmark_contextNo
resolved_districtNo
requested_postcodeNo
census_demographicsNo
deprivation_decilesNo
property_and_energyNo
schools_and_educationNo
digital_infrastructureNo
healthcare_and_servicesNo

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 cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description adds the valuable parts: default returns the full profile, brief view is ~80 tokens, and context-budget tradeoffs. It doesn't discuss caching, rate limits, or failure behavior on malformed postcodes, but nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 tight sentences: trigger first, default/token guidance second, exclusions and alternative last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema, full parameter documentation, and safety annotations, the description fills the remaining gap — when to call it, when not to, and how to trade tokens for detail. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already documents every view enum value, the exclude semantics (full-view only), and postcode formatting. The description's only real addition is the token-cost rationale for brief mode, which is marginal against a fully documented schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (lookup) and resource (GB unit postcode profile) and enumerates the domains returned (demographics, property, EPC, broadband, socio-economic). It also names the scope boundary (England, Scotland, Wales) and distinguishes itself from compare_postcodes, so an agent can pick it without consulting siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use when you need ... context for a GB unit postcode'), two explicit exclusions (non-GB postcodes such as BT, and multi-postcode comparisons routed to compare_postcodes), plus a conditional recommendation to use view="brief" under token pressure.

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