Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Postcode Context Great Britain

Postcode Context Great Britain

Official
by postcodecontext
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Screen & Rank Great Britain Postcodes

screen_postcodes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank and screen 2–10 Great Britain postcodes by a chosen metric such as affluence, crime safety, or broadband speed to get a sorted leaderboard.

Instructions

Rank and screen 2 to 10 Great Britain postcodes by a specific target metric (affluence, house price, crime safety, broadband speed, family suitability, or connectivity). Returns a sorted leaderboard. For 11 to 50 postcodes use enrich_postcodes; for full cross-metric comparison of 2 to 5 postcodes 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>",
      "metric": "<metric>"
    },
    "name": "screen_postcodes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
orderNoSort order: "desc" (highest first, default) or "asc" (lowest first).desc
metricYesTarget metric to rank postcodes by: "affluence" (1-100 score), "house_price" (median GBP), "crime_safety" (IMD crime decile), "broadband_speed" (gigabit availability), "family_suitability" (1-100 score), or "connectivity" (transit & broadband).
postcodesYesList of 2 to 10 Great Britain postcodes to screen and rank (e.g. ["SW1A 1AA", "BB7 3BB", "M1 1AE"]). Maximum 10 postcodes.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
orderYes
_billingNo
_licensingNo
_disclaimerNo
leaderboardYes
_attributionYes
total_screenedYes
metric_ranked_byYes

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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the batch-size ceiling (2-10) as a hard behavioral limit and states the return shape is a sorted leaderboard, which goes beyond structured fields. It says nothing about error behavior for invalid postcodes or rate limits, keeping it short of 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 core action and constraint, followed by return shape and sibling routing. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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 not be described, and the description notes the leaderboard shape anyway. With 100% parameter coverage, explicit batch limits, and named alternatives, nothing an agent needs to call this 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 both enum parameters carry their own value explanations (metric units, order direction), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the metric list rather than adding semantics beyond it, which matches 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?

"Rank and screen 2 to 10 Great Britain postcodes by a specific target metric" gives a concrete verb, resource, and scope, and enumerates the six metrics. It explicitly differentiates itself from enrich_postcodes and compare_postcodes by batch size and purpose, so an agent can select it without opening 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?

The description states both routing rules explicitly: 11-50 postcodes goes to enrich_postcodes, and full cross-metric comparison of 2-5 goes to compare_postcodes. That leaves single-metric screening of 2-10 as this tool's clear lane, with no inference required.

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