list-regionsList the countries and regions in the directory with their slugs and hut counts. Call this first to find valid slugs for search-huts.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list-regions"
}
}| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the result includes slugs and hut counts, which is meaningful given there is no output schema to document the return shape.
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 with no filler. The main purpose and output contents are front-loaded, and the workflow cue is placed second. Every word 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 simple no-parameter list tool with readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description is complete: it states what is returned, why the agent should call it, and how it relates to the next step. No missing information is needed to invoke it correctly.
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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Under the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is appropriately handled.
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 states a specific verb ('List'), an explicit resource ('countries and regions in the directory'), and the included fields ('slugs and hut counts'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search-huts, which do not simply enumerate regions.
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?
It explicitly instructs the agent to call this tool first in order to find valid slugs for search-huts. This provides direct when-to-use guidance and connects it to a named sibling, leaving no ambiguity about its role in a workflow.
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.