get_geo_triggerGeo-risk 0–100 with layers. Call this when you need a numeric geopolitical risk level and its components.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_geo_trigger"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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=true, so safety and freshness profile are covered. The description adds that the return is a numeric score plus component layers, which is useful. It does not disclose update cadence, geographic scope, or how open-world sourcing affects reliability — worth noting given openWorldHint.
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 sentences, zero filler, and the output definition is front-loaded ahead of the invocation cue. Nothing is redundant.
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 carries full burden for return-value shape and says only '0–100 with layers' and 'components' — an agent still doesn't know layer names, structure, or what 0 vs 100 mean. For a parameterless tool only the 0–100 scale and component concept are conveyed.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing the description needs to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless call by describing the output only.
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 the resource and output concretely: a 0–100 geopolitical risk score broken into layers/components. That is more than a restatement of 'geo trigger'. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from nearby siblings like get_geo or get_current_regime, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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?
'Call this when you need a numeric geopolitical risk level and its components' gives a positive trigger condition, which is genuine usage guidance. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives despite ~35 siblings, several of which plausibly overlap (get_geo, get_current_regime, get_chokepoints), leaving the agent to infer selection.
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.