Finds Swiss municipalities by name fragment or postcode. Returns the BFS id, name, canton and postcodes for each match. The BFS id is the key every other tool here takes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Name fragment, e.g. "Uster". Case-insensitive. | |
| zip | No | Four-digit Swiss postcode, e.g. "8308" (which alone spans three Gemeinden). | |
| limit | No | Maximum matches to return (1-50). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / q / descriptionPrevious value: -"Name fragment, e.g. \"Feusisberg\". Case-insensitive."New value: +"Name fragment, e.g. \"Uster\". Case-insensitive."Input schema / properties / zip / descriptionPrevious value: -"Four-digit Swiss postcode, e.g. \"8854\" (which alone spans three Gemeinden)."New value: +"Four-digit Swiss postcode, e.g. \"8308\" (which alone spans three Gemeinden)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool searches by name fragment or postcode, returns multiple matches ('for each match'), and what output fields to expect. It does not mention edge cases like empty results or behavior when both q and zip are supplied, but for a simple search tool the disclosed behavior is reasonably transparent.
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?
Two focused sentences with no fluff. The first sentence names the action and search keys; the second specifies the return fields and the key's significance. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description's enumeration of returned fields (BFS id, name, canton, postcodes) is essential and present. It also provides the cross-tool context of BFS id being required by siblings. Minor gap: it does not explicitly say that q or zip is expected to be provided, though the search framing implies this.
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?
The input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptive names and examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides: the schema already defines q as a name fragment and zip as a Swiss postcode. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Finds Swiss municipalities by name fragment or postcode.' It also specifies the return fields (BFS id, name, canton, postcodes) and explicitly positions the BFS id as the key for all other tools, clearly distinguishing this lookup/search tool from siblings like municipality_detail.
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?
The phrase 'The BFS id is the key every other tool here takes' provides strong contextual guidance for when to use this tool: as the entry point before calling other municipality-related tools. It does not explicitly state conditions like 'use municipality_detail if you already have the BFS id', but the implied routing is clear enough for an agent.
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.