tl_reverse_geocodeConvert latitude and longitude into a full address with province, city, and neighbourhood to confirm delivery points or determine the city for shipping rules.
Describe coordinates as an address with province, city and neighbourhood.
Use to confirm a delivery point or get the city for shipping rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | Latitude, e.g. 35.7575. | |
| long | Yes | Longitude, e.g. 51.4106. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / properties / lat / descriptionPrevious value: -"Latitude (Iran: ~25 to ~40), e.g. 35.7575."New value: +"Latitude, e.g. 35.7575."Input schema / properties / lat / titleRemoved value: -"Lat"Input schema / properties / long / descriptionPrevious value: -"Longitude (Iran: ~44 to ~63), e.g. 51.4106."New value: +"Longitude, e.g. 51.4106."Input schema / properties / long / titleRemoved value: -"Long"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"tl_reverse_geocodeArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "tl_reverse_geocodeDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the output granularity (province/city/neighbourhood), which is useful since there is no output schema, but says nothing about coverage limits, accuracy, or failure behavior for out-of-range coordinates.
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, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the use cases second. Nothing is redundant with the name or title.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return shape (address components) and the primary use cases. It stops short of noting the regional coordinate bounds or what happens when a point cannot be resolved.
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% with typed, bounded, example-bearing lat/long properties, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no coordinate format, ordering, or unit guidance beyond what the schema already provides — baseline 3.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('describe coordinates as an address') and enumerates the returned components (province, city, neighbourhood), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It never names the obvious inverse sibling (tl_find_location), so differentiation is left to inference, keeping it below 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?
Gives two concrete use cases — confirming a delivery point and resolving a city for shipping rules — which is clear contextual guidance. However, it offers no when-not conditions and does not contrast with tl_find_location (forward geocoding) or other location siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.