Return factors, GWP values, conversions, sources, and pack SHA for one exact bundled region/year. No nearest-region or nearest-year substitution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | ||
| region | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states what is returned (factors, GWP, conversions, sources, pack SHA) and discloses the non-substitution behavior, which is valuable. It does not mention error handling for missing exact matches, but the output schema likely covers return structure.
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 sentences, tightly packed with relevant information. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key behavioral constraint. No unnecessary words or redundant details.
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 simple two-parameter tool, the description is largely complete, especially since an output schema exists to define return values. It covers the core purpose and the critical exact-match constraint. It could additionally mention what happens when an exact region/year is not found, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
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?
The input schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context by describing region and year as exact, bundled keys with no substitution, but it does not provide format, allowed values, or examples for these parameters. The description adds some semantics beyond the bare schema but not comprehensive guidance.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource: factors, GWP values, conversions, sources, and pack SHA for an exact bundled region/year. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the exact-match, no-substitution behavior, which sets it apart from list_factor_packs and other tools.
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 communicates clear context: this tool is for retrieving a single, exact factor pack for a specified region and year. It explicitly states that no nearest-region or nearest-year substitution occurs, which tells the agent when not to expect approximate results, though it does not name an alternative tool for approximate lookups.
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 targets a distinct action: calculate, classify, describe, get, list, and verify. There is no overlap or ambiguity between the tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case, making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
The server has 6 tools, which is well-scoped for its purpose of GHG inventory calculation and verification. Each tool serves a clear role without redundancy.
The tool set covers the core workflows: calculating inventories, classifying activities, retrieving factor packs, listing available packs, and verifying results. No obvious gaps are present for the stated domain.