get_countryGet one country by ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code, including its active cities (top 100 by POI count).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iso2 | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code, e.g. 'DE'. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iso2 | Yes | ||
| cities | No | ||
| name_de | Yes | ||
| name_en | Yes | ||
| poi_count | Yes | ||
| city_count | Yes | ||
| name_local | No | ||
| wikidata_qid | No |
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 declare readOnly and openWorld hints. The description adds that it returns the top 100 active cities by POI count, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose and output. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the action.
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 retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the key input (ISO code) and output (country with top cities), providing sufficient context for an AI agent.
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 coverage for the single parameter is 100% and already describes the ISO code format. The description repeats this but adds no additional parameter detail, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves one country by ISO code and includes its top active cities. It distinguishes from siblings like list_countries (list all) and get_city (single city).
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 implicitly indicates when to use (when you need a specific country with its top cities) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.