Get all metric values for one canton. canton = 2-letter abbreviation (e.g. ZH, GE, TI). rank 1 = lowest value for cost metrics (dir 'low', e.g. taxes/rent) and highest value for capacity/benefit metrics (dir 'high', e.g. sunshine/jobs). Ranks describe order under the stated scenario, not universal suitability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| canton | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully explains rank direction and the caveat that ranks are scenario-relative, but it does not describe return format, error behavior for invalid abbreviations, or explicitly confirm a read-only operation beyond the verb 'get'.
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?
Three short sentences, each contributing necessary information: the operation, the parameter format, and the rank interpretation. There is no redundant wording or padding.
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?
For a simple single-canton retrieval tool, the description covers purpose, input format, and metric interpretation. It does not describe the output structure, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the phrase 'all metric values' and the tool's straightforward nature.
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?
The schema only defines 'canton' as a string, but the description adds the crucial format rule: '2-letter abbreviation (e.g. ZH, GE, TI)'. This substantially compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though it does not exhaustively list allowed values.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('metric values'), and an explicit scope ('for one canton'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_cantons or rank_by_metric, which operate across cantons or single metrics.
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 opening sentence establishes the clear use case: retrieving all metric values for a single canton. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the 'one canton' scope and the provided abbreviation format give practical usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.