Compare 2-10 countries on selected indicators.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country_ids | Yes | List of country codes (max 10) | |
| indicator_ids | No | Indicator IDs to compare (default: GDP, population, life expectancy, etc.) |
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, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, how defaults are selected, or edge-case behavior. The only behavioral detail is the 2-10 country limit, which is also in the schema. This is insufficient.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, effectively stating the tool's core action.
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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal to provide complete context. It does not explain what the comparison result looks like, how data is sourced, or any caveats. Sibling tools like get_indicator_ranking suggest different purposes, so more detail is needed.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter details beyond the schema, except clarifying the minimum of 2 countries, but this is minor. The schema already documents both params.
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 uses a specific verb (Compare) and resource (countries on indicators), and the name differentiates it from sibling compare_sources. It also specifies the count range (2-10), making the tool's scope clear.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives; the description only states the action. However, the tool's name and context imply it is for multi-country comparisons, while siblings like get_country_overview target single countries. Since this is not explicit, score 3.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but get_historical_data and get_series_data can overlap for monthly series, and compare_countries versus get_indicator_ranking both offer cross-country comparisons. Detailed descriptions mitigate most ambiguity.
All tools use a verb_noun pattern in snake_case, but list-like operations are inconsistently named (e.g., get_available_indicators and get_country_list use get_ while list_series uses list_). Overall, the pattern is predictable.
With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped. It covers discovery (search/list), retrieval (country overview, series), comparison, ranking, and calendar features without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers indicator discovery, country metadata, historical and high-frequency data, comparisons, ranking, and release calendar. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated indicator metadata tool) but core workflows are supported.
