列出可查詢的縣市與鄉鎮，供 get_cbi_hotspots 的 city、area 參數使用
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_areas"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | 指定縣市時列出該縣市的鄉鎮；不填則列出所有縣市 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only enumeration and adds the valuable context that the returned values feed the city/area parameters of another tool, but it does not describe the return shape (flat list vs. county→township mapping) or whether results are cached/static.
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 that identifies the resource and its downstream use with no wasted wording.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back; it does so only in terms of intended use, not structure. For a small lookup tool this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing whether area values are returned with their parent city or as a flat list.
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 100%, and the single city parameter is already documented in the schema as selecting townships for that county. The description adds no further semantics about the city argument, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource (列出可查詢的縣市與鄉鎮) and names the consumer of the data (get_cbi_hotspots), so an agent knows this is a lookup/enumeration tool rather than an analysis tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the other list_* siblings, but the named downstream consumer makes its role clear.
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?
It gives a concrete trigger for use: call this before get_cbi_hotspots to obtain valid city and area values. There are no explicit when-not conditions or statements about alternatives, which keeps it just short of a 5.
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.