check_coverageAnswer "does this eSIM work in " for a destination (country, region or global plan). Accepts a country name or ISO code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | en | |
| country | Yes | ||
| destination | Yes |
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?
The description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean), whether it has side effects, or any error/rate-limit behavior. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and only gives input-format information. That is insufficient for full transparency.
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, purposeful sentences with zero filler. The user-facing question is front-loaded and immediately makes the tool's purpose graspable, followed immediately by the relevant input constraint for country. It is efficient and well-structured.
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 such a simple tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete for selecting and invoking the tool: it identifies the required destination and country arguments and gives concrete value format. The main drawback is not stating the strict return type, but the "does this eSIM work" phrasing makes the expected result inference easy enough for an 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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needs to compensate. It does a decent job by clarifying that country accepts a name or ISO code and that destination can be a country, region, or global plan. However, the locale parameter is neither described nor mentioned, so the description does not fully cover all needed parameter semantics.
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 explains that the tool answers whether an eSIM plan works in a given country, using the natural phrasing "does this eSIM work in <country>". It specifically distinguishes itself from sibling tools that list destinations, get plan details, or recommend plans by focusing on the coverage yes/no question.
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 gives a clear usage context: call it when the agent needs to check coverage of a destination for a country. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the query-style phrasing makes the usage intent understandable. This is clear contextual guidance without exclusions, so a 4 fits.
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.
Each tool has a clear primary purpose, but check_coverage and get_destination_info both provide coverage-related information, and recommend_plan/search_plans can overlap in plan selection. Descriptions are detailed enough to guide an agent, though a few boundary cases remain.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_, create_, get_, list_, recommend_, search_. The verbs are distinct and the nouns clearly identify the resource being acted on.
Seven tools is well-scoped for an eSIM connectivity server, covering coverage, destination info, plan discovery, recommendation, and checkout without unnecessary duplication.
The tool set covers coverage checks, destination details, plan search/retrieval, recommendations, and checkout handoff. Minor gaps exist around top-up actions and post-purchase order management, but the core connectivity workflow is well covered.