check_market_coverageCheck whether Growthmak serves a given country or region, and return local proof points if so. Returns served: false with the full list of served markets when it does not — do not infer coverage from other pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | Yes | Country or region name |
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 transparently states two outcomes: returns 'served: false' with a full list of served markets when a country is not served, and returns local proof points when it is. This covers key behaviors, though details on proof point format are omitted.
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 that front-load the purpose and immediately follow with behavioral guidance and a warning. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. It is as concise as possible while remaining informative.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the tool's functionality and return behavior in both success and failure cases. It lacks fine-grained detail about the structure of proof points or the served market list, but the core information is complete enough for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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 input schema already describes the only parameter 'country' as 'Country or region name' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic information about this parameter beyond restating its purpose, so it meets the baseline expectation without adding extra value.
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 verb 'Check' and resource 'market coverage' for a given country or region. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on coverage verification rather than auditing, case studies, or other functions. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
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 advises 'do not infer coverage from other pages,' providing a clear guideline to use this tool rather than deriving coverage information elsewhere. It gives context on when to use the tool but does not name specific sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: book_growth_audit returns a booking link, check_market_coverage checks geographic coverage, find_case_studies retrieves case studies, get_growth_engine explains the Growth Engine system, get_packages lists packages, get_page retrieves a specific page, and search_growthmak is a fallback search. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., book_growth_audit, check_market_coverage, find_case_studies, search_growthmak), but get_growth_engine and get_page deviate slightly with 'growth_engine' and 'page' not being as uniformly structured. The naming is consistent and readable overall.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a marketing consultancy's MCP server. Each tool covers a distinct functional area (booking, geographic coverage, case studies, system explanation, packages, page retrieval, and search). No tool feels redundant or missing.
The server provides good coverage for key interactions: it can inform about services, packages, case studies, and booking. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to submit contact details or make a booking directly, but this is explicitly documented as out of scope. The surface feels complete for its stated purpose of information provision.