county_activityNew liquor license filings in one county in the last 30 days, with its most common license types and cities, and how many were changes of ownership.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | Two-letter state code, e.g. TX | |
| county | Yes | County or parish name, e.g. Harris |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the fixed 30-day window and the fact that results are aggregated into top-N license types, top cities, and an ownership-change count rather than raw records. It does not say what happens for a county with zero filings or whether aggregates are truncated.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and the time window. It is slightly overstuffed with the trailing list of aggregate outputs, but every clause carries information.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so adequately by naming the summarized fields. For a two-parameter, read-only, closed-world aggregate tool this is close to sufficient; only edge-case behavior (empty results, top-N limits) is missing.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both state and county documented including examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the mild implication that a single county is targeted and that no date parameters exist because the window is fixed; it contributes no formatting or matching guidance beyond the schema.
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 a specific resource (new liquor license filings) with a precise scope (one county, last 30 days) and enumerates what the response summarizes: top license types, top cities, and change-of-ownership counts. It is clearly distinct from siblings like find_license or list_states, though it never explicitly names those alternatives to sharpen the contrast.
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: an agent can infer this is the aggregate/overview tool for a single county's recent activity, as opposed to a single-record lookup. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over sample_filings or find_license, and no note about prerequisites such as the county needing to exist in the dataset.
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.