random_castleOne random landmark with its full record, optionally limited to a country — for discovery, quizzes and "castle of the day" features.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | Country name or ISO code (optional) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description discloses key behaviors: returns one random record, optional country filter. Adequate for a simple read tool.
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?
Single sentence front-loads purpose and is perfectly concise with no filler.
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 tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers return type, optionality, and intended use completely.
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% and parameter description already explains 'country' as optional. Tool description adds context ('optionally limited to a country') but minimal extra value.
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 clearly states it returns one random landmark with full record, optionally filtered by country. It distinguishes from siblings like get_castle (specific) and castles_near (proximity).
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?
Explicitly mentions use cases like discovery, quizzes, and 'castle of the day'. Implies when not to use via sibling tool names but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: geospatial search (castles_near), single-record retrieval (get_castle), aggregate statistics (get_statistics), country overviews (list_countries), random discovery (random_castle), name-based search (search_castles), and fame-based rankings (top_castles). The only slight overlap between list_countries and get_statistics is minimal and both descriptions clearly separate them.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and are self-explanatory, but they mix verb-first patterns (get_, list_, search_) with adjective or noun-first patterns (random_castle, top_castles, castles_near). This is a minor deviation from a fully consistent verb_noun convention, though the inconsistency does not hinder readability.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a castle atlas. Each tool covers a distinct need—search, get, near, top, random, stats, countries—without redundancy or bloat.
The toolset covers most read-oriented workflows: finding, retrieving, ranking, and statistics. A notable gap is the lack of a way to list all castles in a country or category without a name search term; search_castles requires a name substring and top_castles returns only the most famous. This is a workaround by using search with a broad term, but it's not a first-class operation.