The countries this server knows about and what it can actually do in each: which have a real accounts engine, which registers can be searched or looked up, the currency, and the identifiers each jurisdiction files under. Call this first when unsure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes what the tool returns (jurisdiction capabilities, currency, identifiers) and, being a list operation, implies read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or that it requires no special permissions, but for a simple list operation this is not a significant gap.
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?
The description is two sentences, tightly packed with all essential information. The first sentence enumerates the output details, and the second gives a crisp usage instruction. No fluff or repetition—every sentence 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect and when to use it. There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from correctly invoking or interpreting the result.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. The schema is trivially complete (no properties). The baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameters.
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 tool's purpose: to list the jurisdictions the server knows about and their capabilities. It specifies the exact information provided (accounts engine, register search/lookup, currency, identifiers) and even includes a usage hint ('Call this first when unsure'), which distinguishes it from other sibling tools that are more specific.
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 description explicitly says 'Call this first when unsure,' providing a clear trigger for when to use the tool. While it doesn't list exclusions, it implies this is a discovery/orientation tool and the natural first step before using more specific jurisdiction-dependent tools.
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.