get_placeThe full study of one place in one decade as Markdown: a look around, work, faith, law and power, money, what people feared, a year-by-year list, what each source says, and the numbered sources with links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| place | Yes | A place name (e.g. "Mauch Chunk"), or the place id a search result gives (e.g. "mauch-chunk-carbon-county-pennsylvania"). | |
| decade | Yes | The decade as its first year, e.g. 1820. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Because there is no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so well by enumerating the Markdown sections and noting that sources include links. It omits size/length expectations but is otherwise solid.
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 front-loaded sentence that names the subject and format first, then lists the contents. Every clause is content-bearing, though the long content list is dense and could be trimmed without loss.
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 usefully explains the return structure, and read-only behavior is covered by annotations. The main gap is the absence of routing guidance relative to the sibling search/about tools.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (place, decade) are already documented with examples and format. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.
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?
States a specific verb and resource scoped precisely: 'the full study of one place in one decade as Markdown.' The enumerated contents (work, faith, law, year-by-year list, sources) make clear what 'full study' means. It does not name or differentiate against siblings like search_places or about_yore, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is offered. The agent is not told to call search_places first to obtain a place id, nor how this differs from about_yore. Usage must be inferred from the title and schema alone.
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.