About Lity
get_lity_infoWhat Lity is, coverage (Spain: immigration/extranjería, housing rental), languages, access status and links. Read-only.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
get_lity_infoWhat Lity is, coverage (Spain: immigration/extranjería, housing rental), languages, access status and links. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare it read-only; description adds context on the specific content provided, aligning with and enhancing the behavioral disclosure.
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?
Single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose and details.
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?
Fully describes the tool's output and purpose given no parameters or output schema, and clearly contrasts with the sibling 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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Description does not need to add param info, meeting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
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 what Lity is, its coverage, languages, access status, and links, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'submit_early_access_request' which handles submissions.
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?
Implicitly suggests using this to learn about Lity before submitting a request, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one provides information about Lity, the other handles user registration for early access. No overlap exists.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (get_lity_info, submit_early_access_request), ensuring predictability.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for its purpose (info and registration). Slightly under the typical range but appropriate for a simple early access service.
The tool surface covers the entire domain: learning about the service and submitting a request. No necessary operations are missing for early access.