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. "Feusisberg". Case-insensitive. | |
| zip | No | Four-digit Swiss postcode, e.g. "8854" (which alone spans three Gemeinden). | |
| limit | No | Maximum matches to return (1-50). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose the core behavior: searching by name or postcode and returning matches with BFS id, name, canton, and postcodes. However, it does not clarify behavior when both q and zip are supplied, result ordering, empty-result behavior, or whether the search is exact/substring/fuzzy, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.
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 three short sentences with no filler. The main action and search modes are front-loaded, the return fields are listed, and the relationship to other tools is stated efficiently. Every sentence 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?
For a simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned and why the result matters for subsequent tools. The parameter details are covered by the schema. It is mostly complete; only minor edge-case semantics like combined q/zip usage or result ordering are absent.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents q, zip, and limit with rich examples and constraints. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond restating that search can be by name fragment or postcode, which meets but does not exceed the baseline for fully-covered schemas.
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 ('Finds') and resouce ('Swiss municipalities'), modifiers it by search mode ('by name fragment or postcode'), and lists the return fields (BFS id, name, canton, postcodes). It also distinguishes itself from the other municipality tools by noting that the BFS id is the key those tools take, making its role 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?
The description gives clear usage context: this tool is the municipality lookup that produces the BFS id used by every other tool here. It implies 'use this first, then call the other tools with the BFS id', which is actionable, though it does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use scenarios or name alternative sibling 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.
Each tool has a broadly distinct role: municipality lookup, tax ranking, tax detail, tax calculation, apartment listings, and commute time. However, favorable_municipalities, municipality_detail, and tax_lookup all touch tax comparison and could cause an agent to pick the wrong one without reading carefully.
All names are lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some are noun-plus-operation (municipality_search, tax_lookup), while others are descriptive phrases (favorable_municipalities, commute_time). The names are readable but do not follow a consistent verb_noun convention.
Six tools is well within the ideal range and each one covers a meaningful step in the Swiss relocation/municipality-comparison workflow. None feel redundant or padding.
The toolset covers the core workflow: find a municipality, assess its taxes, compare it to a current home, check listings, and estimate commute time. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct way to combine commute filtering with tax ranking, but the surface is largely complete for its stated purpose.