post_v2_passport_rank_customMake your custom passport index/rank Group: V2. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | JSON request body. Example: {"weights":{"Visa-free":2,"Visa on arrival":1,"Visa required":0,"eVisa":1,"eTA":1,"Tourist card":0,"Freedom of movement":3,"Not admitted":-1}} |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no information about side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only or mutating. The phrase 'Make your custom' suggests a create operation, but the description does not elaborate on consequences or requirements.
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 extremely brief, consisting of one sentence plus billing info. While it is concise, it omits essential information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently structured.
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 presence of a nested object parameter and the complexity of a ranking system, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return value, the meaning of 'Group: V2', or how the weights are applied, leaving the agent without sufficient context to use the tool 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 schema includes a single 'body' parameter with an example of weights, but the description does not explain the meaning of these weights or how they influence the ranking. The tool description adds no value beyond the parameter's existence, leaving the agent to guess the parameter's role.
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 'Make your custom passport index/rank' which indicates creating a custom ranking, but it lacks specifics on what the tool actually does, such as the input format or the output. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the name, though the intended purpose is somewhat discernible.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like post_v2_visa_check or post_v2_visa_map. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool would be appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.