get_cluster_summaryStructured summary of a topic cluster (border-crossings, customs, safety, insurance, essentials) in the requested language, with its guide list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | Yes | BCP-47 short code; one of the 10 supported locales. | |
| segment | Yes | Topic cluster segment. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lead | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| groups | Yes | ||
| cluster | Yes | ||
| segment | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it returns a structured summary with a guide list in the requested language. It doesn't contradict annotations, but doesn't reveal additional side effects or prerequisites.
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-loaded with the key outcome. No wasted words.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with two enum parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basic return value. However, it lacks usage context and alternative distinction, so slightly incomplete.
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?
Input schema describes both parameters with enums and descriptions, providing 100% coverage. The description mentions 'requested language' and lists the segment values, but adds no new parameter semantics 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?
Clearly states it returns a structured summary of a topic cluster with segments and a guide list. The verb is implied as 'get' from the name. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the content scope, but does not explicitly contrast with them.
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. It implies usage for retrieving cluster summaries in a locale, but doesn't mention when not to use or name alternative tools.
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.
Search and search_content overlap in purpose, but search covers multi-language guides while search_content targets a specific language, so they are distinguishable. Other tools like fetch, get_cluster_summary, and the insurance tools have clear distinct roles.
Some tools use a verb_noun pattern (create_draft, estimate_quote, get_cluster_summary, get_insurance_facts), while others are single verbs (fetch, search) or a different verb_noun (search_content). This inconsistency may confuse agents expecting a uniform convention.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of travel guidance and war-risk insurance. Each tool serves a distinct function without unnecessary redundancy.
The tool set covers content search and retrieval, topic summaries, insurance quoting, draft creation, and regulatory facts, covering the core workflows. Minor gaps exist around direct policy management, but the checkout link handles purchase.