MCP Weather & Transit Advisor

geocode_location

Find the latitude and longitude of a city or town by name so you can map it or use the coordinates in weather and transit queries.

Instructions

Find the coordinates (latitude/longitude) of a city or town by name.

Args: place: A city or town name, e.g. "Singapore" or "Austin".

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": {
      "place": "<place>"
    },
    "name": "geocode_location"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`place`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about network/auth requirements, whether the result is cached, what happens on unknown or ambiguous place names, or whether multiple matches can occur — all relevant for a geocoding call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a compact Args block — no filler. The Args section is slightly redundant with the schema and the example could be more instructive, but overall it is tight and readable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The one-parameter surface is small, but the zero schema coverage plus a zero-annotation mutation-free lookup means input disambiguation and failure behavior are undocumented — adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter is just a bare string titled 'Place'. The Args block only restates the name with two city examples; it adds no format guidance (e.g., 'City, Country' disambiguation, no addresses or landmarks), which is exactly what a geocoder needs.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Find the coordinates (latitude/longitude) of a city or town by name.' The output form (lat/long) is stated, and it is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_current_weather or get_commute_advice, which consume rather than produce coordinates.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the purpose: an agent can infer this is the lookup step before weather/commute tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the sibling tools or of what to do for ambiguous or non-city places (addresses, landmarks, disambiguation).

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

Deploy Server