Перелік територій із фільтрами та посторінковою видачею.
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_territories"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| region_code | No | ||
| district_code | No | ||
| community_code | No | ||
| territory_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / territory_typeAdded value: +{
+ "default": "",
+ "title": "Territory Type",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that results are paginated; it says nothing about read-only safety, ordering, default page size, or what is returned.
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, which is structurally clean. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity: one sentence is simply too thin for a seven-parameter query tool.
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?
With seven optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and near-zero schema documentation, the description leaves an agent unable to determine filter semantics or result shape. For this complexity level it does far too little.
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% across 7 parameters, so the schema gives the agent only bare names and defaults. The description gestures at 'filters' and pagination but never explains what limit/offset/category/region_code/district_code/community_code/territory_type accept or how they combine.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Перелік територій' = list territories) and mentions filters and paginated output, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from closely named siblings such as list_oblasts, list_first_level_territories, or search_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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than search_territories, search_territories_detailed, or the various specialized list_* siblings. The mention of filters and paging is a capability statement, not usage guidance.
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.