List all searchable pickup cities by country. Call this to find valid city names before searching.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | Country code filter (e.g. AU, NZ, US). Omit to return all supported countries. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds that cities are 'searchable pickup cities', providing domain context, but does not detail output format, pagination, or other behavioral specifics beyond what annotations convey.
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 two short sentences: the first states the function, the second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrasing or filler.
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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description provides purpose, usage timing, and schema covers the filter. No output schema exists, but the description clarifies the output is 'valid city names', making the tool adequately complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 has 100% description coverage for the single 'country' parameter, giving clear examples and omission behavior. The tool description merely echoes 'by country' without adding new semantic details, so it does not exceed the baseline for well-documented schema.
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+resource: 'List all searchable pickup cities by country'. It clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling search_campervans by focusing on location lookup rather than vehicle search.
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 second sentence, 'Call this to find valid city names before searching', explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool relative to the search operation, providing clear usage timing and implying it supports search_campervans.
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.
list_locations and search_campervans have clearly distinct purposes: one enumerates valid cities, the other performs a search. No overlap exists.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_locations, search_campervans) and use the same snake_case style.
With only two tools, the set feels thin, but the narrow domain of rental search partially justifies the small count. It borders on under-scoped.
The search tool only returns a pre-filled URL, not live results, so the agent cannot fully retrieve rentals, pricing, or availability autonomously. This is a significant gap in the intended workflow.