Philippine-Geocoding

validate_code

validate_code

Check if a Philippine geographic code is valid and identify its type using the PSGC database.

Instructions

Validate if a geographic code exists and return its type

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "validate_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Dec 31, 2025

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions validation and returning a type, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the code doesn't exist), performance characteristics, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. There's no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'type' means (e.g., region, province), the return format, or error cases. For a validation tool in a geographic context with many siblings, more context is needed.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'code' is a 'geographic code,' but doesn't specify format, examples, or constraints (e.g., numeric, alphanumeric, length). This insufficiently compensates for the low schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Validate if a geographic code exists and return its type.' It specifies the verb (validate), resource (geographic code), and outcome (return type). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_by_name' or 'get_hierarchy' that might also handle geographic codes.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for geographic data retrieval (e.g., 'get_city', 'get_region'), the description lacks context about whether this is for code validation only, when to prefer it over direct lookup tools, or any prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server