list_cities
List city coverage, optionally filtered by state.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| offset | No |
List city coverage, optionally filtered by state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are 'city coverage'; it says nothing about pagination behavior or the return shape despite limit/offset existing.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably a touch too spare given the undocumented pagination parameters.
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?
A simple read-only list tool with no output schema, so the bar is low, but 'coverage' is left undefined and pagination is never addressed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, yet it only accounts for the 'state' parameter. 'limit' and 'offset' are entirely unmentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.
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 a specific verb and resource ('List city coverage') and adds the optional state filter. It is reasonably distinguishable from the sibling list_states, though it never names that sibling explicitly the way a 5 would.
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?
'optionally filtered by state' implies when the filter applies, but there is no guidance on when to reach for this versus list_states or get_coverage.
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.