APIVerve

Country Borders

CountryBorders

Read-only

Country Borders: Country Borders identifies adjacent nations by two-letter ISO country code. It returns the list of bordering countries along with region, subregion, and landlocked status. (Cost: 2 credits)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "country": "<country>"
    },
    "name": "CountryBorders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`country`	Yes	The Country 2 Letter ISO code (e.g., CA)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No
`error`	No	Error message, null on success
`status`	No	"ok" on success

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true). The description adds genuinely useful cost information ('Cost: 2 credits') and names the returned fields, but says nothing about edge cases such as island nations with no neighbors, invalid ISO codes, or whether results include overseas territories.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and back-loaded with cost. The opening redundantly repeats the name ('Country Borders: Country Borders identifies...'), which is the only real waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter lookup with an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient — return fields and cost are stated. What is missing is the disambiguation from the near-identical sibling CountryBoundaries and any behavioral note for countries with no land borders.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented with an example ('CA'), so the schema does the work. The description's mention of 'two-letter ISO country code' merely restates the schema rather than adding format, casing, or validity constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('identifies adjacent nations by two-letter ISO country code') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not differentiate from the sibling CountryBoundaries, which sounds like the same capability, leaving real ambiguity for selection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: give a country code, get its neighbors. There is no statement of when to prefer this over CountryBoundaries or CountryLookup, no exclusion for non-country or invalid codes, and no note about territories or disputed borders.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All APIVerve tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.