Перелік 27 територій першого рівня: 24 області, АР Крим, Київ і Севастополь.
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": "list_first_level_territories"
}
}| 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?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fixed result set (27 items) but says nothing about ordering, format, authentication, or whether the list is static or dynamic.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the count and enumerates the categories. No waste, though the enumeration (church/sevastopol) is somewhat redundant with the count.
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 zero-param list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify the return shape and how it differs from list_oblasts/list_territories. It gives the set contents but no guidance on differentiating among sibling list tools.
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?
Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter discussion.
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 resource (first-level territories) and enumerates the composition (27 territories: 24 oblasts, Crimea, Kyiv, Sevastopol). It's clear what the tool returns, though it doesn't explicitly say 'returns a list' and doesn't differentiate from siblings like list_oblasts or list_territories.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_oblasts (which presumably returns just oblasts) or list_territories. The agent must infer from names alone.
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.