Skip to main content
Glama

reliefweb-mcp-server

by io.github.cyanheads

List ReliefWeb Countries

reliefweb_list_countries
Read-onlyIdempotent

List all countries and territories tracked by ReliefWeb, optionally filtered to active humanitarian situations. Returns ISO3 codes and status for each entry — use the ISO3 code with reliefweb_get_country to fetch a full profile. Set crisis_only=true to limit results to countries with active humanitarian situations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of results to return (1–1000, default 100). Each call counts against the 1,000-calls/day quota.
offsetNoZero-based offset for pagination. Use with limit and the totalCount enrichment field to page through results.
crisis_onlyNoWhen true, filters to countries with an active humanitarian situation (status ongoing). Default false returns all countries.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent when the call failed. Absent on success.
itemsNoCountries tracked by ReliefWeb.
noticeNoPresent only when the page is empty. Names the match count and the last reachable offset when the query matched records; otherwise echoes the filters applied and suggests how to broaden.
totalCountNoTotal countries matching the filter before pagination.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating what is returned (ISO3 codes and status) and how the optional filter affects results ('crisis_only=true to limit results to countries with active humanitarian situations'). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler. The core function and output are front-loaded, followed by the filter usage and a pointer to the sibling. Every word contributes value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is sufficient. It mentions the key output fields, the optional filter, and points to the sibling for full details. The pagination and rate limit are already in the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for limit, offset, and crisis_only, so the description adds little beyond reminding the agent to use crisis_only. The baseline is 3 because the schema carries the parameter semantics; the description does not introduce new meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all countries and territories tracked by ReliefWeb'), distinguishes from the sibling reliefweb_get_country by noting it returns a list, and clarifies the optional crisis filter. This clearly differentiates it from the other list/search tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides an explicit alternative: 'use the ISO3 code with reliefweb_get_country to fetch a full profile.' It also gives a usage condition for crisis_only. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool compared to the search tools (e.g., when a country-specific query is needed), but the given guidance is sufficient for the main alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All reliefweb-mcp-server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource type (country, disaster, job, report, training, source) and a clear action (get, list, search). The search/get pairs are clearly separated by resource, with no overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the consistent pattern reliefweb_<verb>_<noun>, using get, list, and search as verbs. The only minor variation is list_countries vs list_sources, but the plural nouns are appropriate for list operations.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is well within the ideal range and covers five content types plus country and source lookups. Each tool serves a distinct function, making the set comprehensive without being bloated.

Completeness5/5

The surface provides both search and fetch operations for all primary resources (disasters, jobs, reports, training) and complete country/source lookup coverage. No obvious gaps for a read-only humanitarian data API.

Resources