The Cracks Index

Dutch municipality: social-domain profile

gemeente_social_profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the Dutch social-domain profile for one municipality.

Given a CBS GM-code, returns that municipality's four v1 social-domain
indicators — social-assistance receipt, modelled homelessness, Wmo use
and youth-care use — each with its raw value, source and whether it was
measured or modelled. The composite score and rank are included for
context, alongside the v0-equivalent score.

Read-only, no personal data. wmo_pressure and youth_care_load are context
only — never folded into the score. CBS aggregates describe an area, not
its quality. Netherlands-only: the deeper municipal layer exists for
Dutch municipalities.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`region_code`	Yes	CBS GM-code of a Dutch municipality, e.g. 'GM0363' (Amsterdam) or 'GM0599' (Rotterdam). Case-insensitive.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: it claims 'Read-only, no personal data,' warns that wmo_pressure and youth_care_load are context-only and never scored, and notes that CBS aggregates describe an area, not quality. This goes beyond the structured hints.

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?

The description is about 80 words, front-loads purpose, and contains no filler. Each sentence contributes either return details, scoping, or caveats; the organization is logical.

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?

Despite a rich output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates return fields (indicators, raw value, source, measured/modelled), composite score/rank, v0-equivalent, and clarifies the role of context-only variables. It also covers geographic scope and safety, making it self-sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke.

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?

The sole parameter region_code is fully documented in the schema with examples and case-insensitivity note (100% coverage). The description restates 'Given a CBS GM-code' but adds no new semantic detail 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 opens with 'Return the Dutch social-domain profile for one municipality,' a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the four v1 indicators, composite score, and rank, and clarifies the Netherlands-only scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like area_statistics or compare_gemeenten.

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?

Clearly states the input (CBS GM-code) and scope (one municipality, Netherlands-only). It implies usage for Dutch municipalities but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

All The Cracks Index tools Inspect

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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?