tf_reverse_geocodeConvert latitude and longitude into a readable address with province and city so you can confirm a delivery point before searching.
Describe coordinates as an address with province and city.
Use to confirm a delivery point with the user before searching.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | Delivery point latitude, e.g. 35.7577. | |
| long | Yes | Delivery point longitude, e.g. 51.4095. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the output content (address with province and city) and the confirmation-workflow role, but says nothing about failure behavior for coordinates outside the schema bounds (24-40 lat, 44-64 long) or about lookup/rate characteristics.
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 with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the usage note follows. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description does supply the return content (address with province and city), which is the key missing piece it needed to cover. It is slightly thin on region/coordinate-range caveats and any error behavior, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.
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%: both lat and long carry descriptions, examples and numeric bounds. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 (reverse-geocode coordinates into an address with province and city), which is clear and unambiguous. It does not name or contrast itself with siblings like tf_find_location or tf_list_cities, which is the only gap keeping it from a 5.
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?
"Use to confirm a delivery point with the user before searching" gives concrete when-to-use context and implies the sequence it belongs to. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative tool, 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.