reverse_geocodeConvert delivery latitude and longitude into a readable point of interest, street, or neighbourhood to confirm the drop-off before searching.
Describe coordinates in words (point of interest, street, neighbourhood).
Use to confirm a delivery point with the user before searching.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | Delivery point latitude. | |
| long | Yes | Delivery point longitude. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / lat / descriptionPrevious value: -"Latitude of the delivery point (Iran: ~25 to ~40)."New value: +"Delivery point latitude."Input schema / properties / lat / titleRemoved value: -"Lat"Input schema / properties / long / descriptionPrevious value: -"Longitude of the delivery point (Iran: ~44 to ~63)."New value: +"Delivery point longitude."Input schema / properties / long / titleRemoved value: -"Long"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"reverse_geocodeArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "reverse_geocodeDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds output examples and a workflow context, but it does not add deeper behavioral details such as precision, coordinate system, error handling, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences are front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the intended workflow. There is no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter read-only tool with rich schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It gives output examples and a use case, though it does not explain what happens when coordinates fall outside a serviceable area.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both lat and long are already documented as delivery point coordinates with bounds. The description does not add syntax, format, or precision details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Describe coordinates in words', with examples of the kind of textual output produced. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as find_location or list_cities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence gives a clear intended use case: 'confirm a delivery point with the user before searching.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it falls 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.