Pet Data Station

check_banned_breed

Check banned / restricted dog-breed directories across jurisdictions (UK + Northern Ireland + Scotland, Singapore, AU states, CN cities).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`breed`	No
`limit`	No
`jurisdiction`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently discloses that the tool returns breed lists per jurisdiction plus a summary excerpt, and that full legal text is obtained via get_topic_context. It does not mention edge cases like empty results or default behavior when parameters are omitted, but the core behavior is clear.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It uses line breaks for readable parameter examples and includes a cross-reference to the sibling tool without verbose or redundant wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema is present, the description need not spell out return types. It covers the essential context: jurisdictions, example values, output nature, and where to get richer legal text. It lacks explicit note about behavior when optional parameters are omitted, but that is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaningful examples for 'jurisdiction' and 'breed', which is necessary given the 0% schema description coverage. However, 'limit' is left entirely to the schema (type/default) with no explanation of its effect, so one of the three parameters is not semantically enriched.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('check') and resource ('banned / restricted dog-breed directories'), and clarifies the jurisdictional scope. This clearly distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools (nutrients, recalls, topics) and even signals the adjacent get_topic_context tool for full legal text.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives concrete examples of valid jurisdiction and breed values, making it clear when the tool applies. It also points to get_topic_context for full legal text, implying when not to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need a quick directory check' or contrast with all alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Pet Data Station tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: breed bans, nutrient values, nutrient comparisons, ADE stats, recalls, topic search, topic context, and feedback. Even the two nutrient tools (get_nutrient_value vs. compare_nutrient_standards) are clearly separated by single-value vs. multi-standard comparison, and search_pet_topics vs. get_topic_context are search-vs-retrieve.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case and a verb_noun structure (check_, compare_, get_, search_, submit_). However, the verbs vary (check, compare, get, search, submit) rather than following a single verb family, and three tools start with 'get' while two start with 'search', which is slightly less uniform than a fully consistent pattern but still predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped. The set covers core retrieval operations (search, get context), domain-specific queries (breeds, nutrients, ADE, recalls), and a feedback mechanism. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the apparent domain: searchable topics, detailed context retrieval, and specialized lookups for common pet regulatory questions. A minor gap is that there is no explicit tool to list all available jurisdictions, standards, or categories, but search_pet_topics with category filters and the feedback tool mitigate this. No critical dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?