get_country_reportHow many addresses in a country were reported in the last 30 days, how many are on the blocklist, the most reported addresses there, and the networks and attack categories behind them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code, e.g. DE |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by fixing the time window at the last 30 days and disclosing that the response is an aggregated summary with rankings and category/network breakdowns, but it says nothing about rate limits, edge cases for unknown countries, or ordering.
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?
One sentence that is front-loaded with the core metrics and progressively adds detail. No wasted words, though the question-phrasing reads slightly awkwardly for a tool description rather than a declarative statement.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by enumerating the five kinds of data returned. For a one-parameter read-only report tool that is nearly complete; only unknown-country behavior and the 30-day window's timezone semantics are unaddressed.
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?
With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already specifies the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 format with an example. The description adds no param detail, but there is nothing for it to compensate for, so the baseline is satisfied.
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 names the resource (a country-level abuse report) and enumerates the contents: reported address counts, blocklist counts, top reported addresses, networks and attack categories. That is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_network_report or get_statistics, though it never states the verb explicitly and relies on the question framing.
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?
Usage is only implied: it is the tool to reach for when you want an aggregate abuse picture for one country. There is no explicit when-to-use, no guidance on choosing between this and get_network_report, get_reports or get_statistics, and no stated prerequisites.
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.