Locate buildings in the Swiss federal buildings register (GWR/RegBL) by address and retrieve their EGIDs for use with get_building.
Find buildings in the federal buildings register (GWR/RegBL) by address; gives EGIDs for get_building
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | max 20 | |
| address | Yes | Street, number, locality, e.g. Bundesplatz 3 3011 Bern |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the data source (the official federal register) and what the result keys are (EGIDs). It does not disclose matching behavior (exact vs fuzzy address match), result ordering, or what is returned when no building matches an address.
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?
One compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the output/handoff hint. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.
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 correctly states the key return value (EGIDs) and the tool's upstream role in the get_building workflow, which is what an agent needs to plan a call. Minor omissions are the empty-result behavior and result count, which matter less for a simple two-parameter lookup.
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% and the address parameter already carries a concrete example format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no further detail on the address string structure or on the limit parameter's cap of 20.
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 ('Find buildings in the federal buildings register'), names the underlying register (GWR/RegBL), scopes to address lookup, and names the follow-up tool. An agent can distinguish this from buildings_near and search_real_estate_data without opening a schema.
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 'gives EGIDs for get_building' clause gives an explicit chaining instruction: search here first, then fetch details with get_building. The gap is that the sibling buildings_near (proximity-based lookup) is not mentioned, so an agent must infer that this tool is for address queries and that one for coordinate queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.