SkyFi MCP Server

geocode

Convert a human-readable location (e.g., 'Port of Rotterdam') to latitude/longitude coordinates for searches or ordering tools.

Instructions

Forward geocoding: accepts a human-readable location string (e.g. 'Port of Rotterdam') and returns lat/lng coordinates. Use this when the user mentions a place by name and you need coordinates for search or ordering tools.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "geocode"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	A human-readable location string, e.g. 'Port of Rotterdam'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the core behavior (accepts string, returns lat/lng) but does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., ambiguous locations, no match) or the return format (single pair vs. list of candidates). This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the operation, the second gives a usage scenario. No fluff, front-loaded with the key term.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what, how, and when. Minor omission is the exact output format, but that's not critical for a basic geocode.

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?

The schema already fully describes the 'query' parameter with a clear example, and the description repeats that example but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 starts with 'Forward geocoding' which is a specific verb+resource pair, and clearly states it accepts a location string and returns coordinates. It distinguishes from the sibling reverse_geocode by explicitly naming 'Forward' versus implicitly reverse.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear when-to-use scenario: 'when the user mentions a place by name and you need coordinates for search or ordering tools.' However, it does not explicitly exclude reverse geocoding or mention the alternative sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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