Geo-Parity

Compare country risk (INFORM, EC JRC)

compare_country_risk

Read-onlyIdempotent

INFORM Risk from the European Commission's Joint Research Centre: a 0-10 composite where HIGHER IS WORSE, plus the three dimensions behind it — hazard (exposure to earthquakes, floods, cyclones, drought, conflict), vulnerability (how exposed the population is) and copingCapacity (whether institutions and infrastructure could respond). The last is usually the one that matters when choosing where to live: two countries can face the same earthquake and have completely different outcomes. Safest-first by default. Covers 191 countries, far wider than this site's country pages. A country INFORM does not score is ABSENT, never zero — zero is the safest possible value and would rank an unassessed country first. Deliberately not folded into any other ranking here: risk flags, it never silently reweights a cost or livability score.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sort`	No	Dimension to sort by. maxRisk always filters on the composite.	risk
`limit`	No	Return at most this many countries.
`country`	No	ISO alpha-2 for a single country's scores.
`maxRisk`	No	Keep only countries at or below this composite score.
`descending`	No	True lists the most dangerous first.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`rows`	No
`entry`	No
`release`	No
`updated`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "limit": 20,
+    "maxRisk": 3
+  }
+]

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish safe read-only behavior, and the description adds meaningful traits beyond them: the default sort order (safest-first), the ABSENT-not-zero semantics that would otherwise silently misrank unassessed countries, and the guarantee that it never reweights cost or livability scores. These are exactly the behavioral details annotations can't express.

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?

Front-loaded with the definition and scale before any editorial, and every clause is relevant. It runs a bit long, and the earthquake/copingCapacity aside is more persuasion than specification, but nothing is truly wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still fills key gaps — scale direction, absence handling, coverage breadth, and its isolation from other rankings — leaving only explicit alternative-tool routing unaddressed.

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%, so the schema already carries parameter meaning; baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces a few semantics — that copingCapacity is the decision-relevant dimension and that unsorted output is safest-first — but adds little parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Names the exact data source (INFORM, EC JRC), states the resource (composite risk plus hazard/vulnerability/copingCapacity dimensions), the scale direction (0-10, higher is worse), and the coverage scope (191 countries). It also distinguishes itself from other rankings with 'Deliberately not folded into any other ranking here,' so an agent can tell it apart from compare_safety_stats or compare_climate.

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?

Implies a use case ('when choosing where to live') and leads with a safest-first default, but never names a specific alternative tool or states when NOT to use it. An agent gets a general sense of fit but no explicit routing rule to a sibling.

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

All Geo-Parity 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.

Resources

Need Help?