List DSSR locations by country
Return all DSSR locations for a specific country using its ISO alpha-2 code (e.g., 'AF', 'DE')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country_iso_code | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, e.g. PG for Papua New Guinea; ZZ stands for 'Other Foreign Localities', not a country. Resolve a country name to its code with get_countries (q=name). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a bulk read returning 'all' locations for the country (no pagination implied), but it says nothing about response size, ordering, or what happens with codes that have no data.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the input requirement. The second sentence largely restates the first ('List... by country' / 'Return all... for a specific country'), so there is minor redundancy but no wasted 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 single-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate to call the tool correctly. It does not describe what a DSSR location record contains or how large the result set may be, which the agent cannot learn from any structured field.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter's schema description already covers the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 format, the ZZ edge case, and the get_countries resolution path. The description only repeats the alpha-2 format with different examples, adding no meaning beyond the 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List DSSR locations') plus the scoping dimension ('by country'), so the agent knows this is a country-filtered variant. It never names the sibling get_dssr_locations (presumably the unfiltered version), so the differentiation is only implicit in the phrase 'by country'.
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?
Usage is implied: use this when you have a country and want its DSSR locations, with the input format spelled out. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it versus get_dssr_locations, and the helpful routing hint about resolving names via get_countries lives in the schema, not the description.
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.