Garden Design MCP Server

geocode_address

Convert an address or place into latitude, longitude, and country code to place gardens and plots accurately on a real site.

Instructions

Find an address anywhere in the world (OpenStreetMap Nominatim). Returns {address, lat, lon, countryCode}; countryCode is ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 in lower case. The land-registry tools (get_parcel_by_*, import_parcel) work only for countryCode 'pl'; elsewhere set the garden's place with set_geo_anchor and the plot's boundary with set_boundary.

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "geocode_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Address or place to find, e.g., 'Warszawa, Marszałkowska 1' or '10 Downing Street, London'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.9.3Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape, the countryCode format, and a consequential downstream constraint (countryCode 'pl' gates the land-registry tools). It omits operational behavior an agent would want, such as failure handling for unresolvable addresses and any rate-limit expectations from the Nominatim service, so it falls short of full transparency.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct job: what it does and via which provider, what it returns and in what format, and how the result relates to sibling tools. Purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description's explicit return shape ({address, lat, lon, countryCode}) is necessary and supplied; with no annotations it also supplies the key cross-tool constraint. What remains thin is error/ambiguity behavior and any service-usage caveats, which matter for a geocoder but are not covered.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including two concrete example inputs, so the schema already does the work and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about the address parameter itself (formats accepted, ambiguity handling, geocoding precision).

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Find an address anywhere in the world") and names the backing provider (OpenStreetMap Nominatim), so its scope and data source are unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling land-registry tools (get_parcel_by_*, import_parcel), which it explicitly calls out as a separate family.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states when this tool applies (any address worldwide) and when the alternatives apply: land-registry tools only for countryCode 'pl', otherwise use set_geo_anchor for the garden's place and set_boundary for the plot boundary. That is explicit routing to named siblings with the selecting condition, not just implied usage.

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

Deploy Server