get_city_guideGet one city with all of its narrated sights (name, one-line description, category, coordinates, and visit minutes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city_id | Yes | City id, e.g. "rome". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output details (sights, fields, single city), but does not disclose potential error behavior or any constraints beyond the annotations and schema.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence. It states the operation, resource scope, and the included fields without extraneous words or repetition.
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?
Given the low parameter count, strong schema coverage, and read-only annotation, the description provides enough information to select and invoke the tool. It lacks minor context such as potential size of the returned sight list or error cases, but these are not critical for a simple lookup tool.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description already explains city_id clearly with an example ('rome'). The tool description adds no extra semantics about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the target resource ('one city'), and the specific content ('all of its narrated sights' with listed attributes). It is unambiguous and naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_cities, list_countries, and get_catalog_overview.
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 implies the tool is used when you want a complete guide for a single city by ID, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No guidance is given about when to use search_cities to find a city_id first or when a different sibling would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: overview statistics, city-specific details, country listing, and city search. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear action prefixes (get, list, search). The naming is uniform and predictable.
With only 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped for a catalog domain. Each tool provides essential functionality without unnecessary bloat or gaps.
The server covers all key read operations for a catalog: overview, detailed city guides, country coverage, and search. The workflow from discovery to detail is complete.