Validate latitude and longitude coordinates and retrieve location information for any point.
Validate coordinates and provide information about the location.
Args: lat: Latitude coordinate lon: Longitude coordinate
Returns: Dictionary containing validation results and location information
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns a dictionary and provides location information, but it does not explain behavior for invalid or out-of-range coordinates, network dependencies, or any other operational nuance. This is acceptable 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured with an opening summary, an Args section, and a Returns section. There is no wasted text, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.
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?
The tool is simple with only two required parameters and an output schema, so heavy documentation is not necessary. Still, the description lacks detail on what validation is performed, what location information means, and when this tool is preferable to siblings. These gaps make it minimally acceptable but not fully complete for an agent deciding how to use it.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the responsibility for explaining parameters. It labels each argument as 'Latitude coordinate' and 'Longitude coordinate,' which adds basic human-readable meaning beyond the schema titles 'Lat' and 'Lon.' However, it omits valid ranges (e.g., lat -90 to 90, lon -180 to 180) and any format or precision constraints, so the semantics are only minimally complete.
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 clear action and resource: 'Validate coordinates and provide information about the location.' This distinguishes it from the sibling validate_osm_data, which targets OSM data objects rather than raw coordinates. However, it does not specify exactly what 'validate' means (range checking, OSM coverage, reverse geocoding) or what location information is included.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_place_info, smart_geocode, or validate_osm_data. There are no use cases, exclusions, or context clues beyond the name itself, so an agent must infer when this is the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.