Find Swiss communes by name or postcode (official ESTV location register). Returns commune name, canton and postcode — use before commune_tax or estimate_net_move when the spelling is uncertain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions the official register and the returned fields, giving insight into the tool's behaviour. However, it does not disclose details like case sensitivity, partial matching, or whether both name and postcode can be combined, but for a simple lookup it is adequate given no annotations.
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?
Two efficient sentences with no redundancy; the purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete: it defines input, output, and usage context relative to siblings.
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 input schema has one parameter 'query' with no description, but the tool description adds meaning by stating that the query can be a name or postcode, thereby explaining its usage beyond the bare schema.
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 ('Find Swiss communes'), the inputs (name or postcode), the data source (official ESTV location register), and the returned fields (name, canton, postcode). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying when to use it.
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?
Explicitly says to use this tool before 'commune_tax' or 'estimate_net_move' when spelling is uncertain, providing clear guidance on when it is appropriate and what alternatives are related.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: consultation, tax calculation, canton comparison, relocation cost estimate, single-canton data, historical trends, metric listing, ranking, commune search, and upcoming votes. No overlap or ambiguity exists.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., list_metrics, search_commune, estimate_net_move). No mixing of conventions or erratic naming.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain (Swiss living index). Each tool provides necessary functionality without being overwhelming or too sparse.
The tool set covers core CRUD-like operations: search, retrieve, compare, rank, trend, and estimate. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for detailed commune-level rent or job data), but the overall coverage is strong for the stated purpose.