country_support
Return features available per supported country (AU, IN, UK, US, CA, AE, SG, NZ).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | Single ISO country code. Omit for the full matrix. |
HelloBooks AI Agents MCP Server
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('Return') with no side effects. However, it lacks details on authentication, data freshness, or completeness, though the simplicity of the tool partially mitigates this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence that includes the list of countries. It is concise and front-loaded. However, a slightly structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability for agents.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one optional parameter and no output schema. The description adequately covers the input semantics but omits details about the return format or error conditions (e.g., invalid country). Given the simplicity, it is minimally sufficient but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3, but the description introduces a discrepancy: it lists 'UK' as a supported country while the schema uses 'GB' (ISO code for United Kingdom). Additionally, it states 'Omit for the full matrix' without explaining what 'full matrix' means. This reduces clarity and may mislead agents.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Return features available per supported country', specifying the verb and resource, and lists the supported countries in parentheses. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_features' which likely returns all features without country filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving per-country feature availability but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No 'when not to use' or comparison with siblings is provided, though the context suggests it's a lookup tool distinct from analytical tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are largely distinct, each targeting a specific report type (balance sheet, P&L, trial balance) or functionality. Some overlap exists between QBO and Xero variants, but descriptions clearly differentiate them. Overall, an agent can reliably select the right tool.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., analyze_balance_sheet, list_articles). A few exceptions like free_tier_eligibility and how_munimji_helps break the pattern but are still readable and predictable.
Tool Count3/5
With 29 tools, the count is on the higher side but justified by the domain's breadth (financial analysis, compliance, migration, pricing, etc.). Some reduction through parameterization (e.g., merging QBO/Xero variants) would improve scope.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers key areas: financial statement analysis, compliance, migration estimation, feature/pricing info, and partner programs. Missing are direct data manipulation tools (e.g., create/edit journal entries), which may be intentional for a read-only analysis agent.