country_detailReturn one country's score, rank and per-indicator breakdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iso3 | Yes | ISO-3166 alpha-3 country code, e.g. 'NLD' for the Netherlands. Case-insensitive. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the agent knows it is a safe read. The description adds that the result includes score, rank, and per-indicator breakdown, but these are output details already covered by the output schema. No additional behavioral context (e.g., data source, auth, rate limits) is provided, but given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core function without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter), annotations cover safety traits, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. The description is sufficient for an agent to correctly 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 schema description for iso3 is comprehensive (ISO-3166 alpha-3 code, example, case-insensitive), covering 100% of parameters. The tool description does not add parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 applies as the schema handles the 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 states the tool returns a single country's score, rank, and per-indicator breakdown, distinguishing it from siblings that compare or aggregate multiple entities. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one country') with a concise scope.
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 implies usage for fetching details of a single country, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like compare_countries or region_detail. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so the guidance is only implicit.
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 query: rankings, country details, region details, comparisons, trends, correlations, methodology, and improvement guidance. Despite minor overlaps (e.g., country_fix and improvement_guidance), descriptions clearly differentiate them, so an agent can reliably select the correct tool.
Tool names mix patterns: some start with verbs (compare_countries, get_cracks_index), others with nouns (area_statistics, country_detail, methodology). While readable and clear, the lack of a consistent verb_noun or noun_verb paradigm reduces predictability for an agent.
With 13 tools covering the full spectrum of index queries—rankings, details, comparisons, trends, correlations, methodology, and improvement guidance—the count is well-scoped for the domain. No tool feels superfluous, and the set is neither too sparse nor too bloated.
The tool surface provides complete CRUD-like coverage for the Cracks Index: full ranking, per-area detail and breakdown, comparisons, trends, top movers, indicator correlations, ranking by indicator, methodology, and improvement guidance. No obvious gaps exist for common agent workflows.