The Cracks Index

List regions and municipalities

get_regions

Read-onlyIdempotent

List sub-national areas in the Cracks Index, ranked within their level.

The index covers sub-national areas as well as countries: EU regions
(NUTS-2) and Dutch municipalities. This tool returns those areas with
their composite score and rank.

Parameters
----------
level : optional
    Filter by area level: ``nuts2`` (EU regions) or ``gemeente`` (Dutch
    municipalities). Omit to return all sub-national areas.
country_iso3 : optional
    ISO-3166 alpha-3 country code to restrict the list to one country's
    areas (e.g. ``NLD``).
limit : optional
    Maximum number of areas to return (1-1000, default 200).

Read-only, no personal data. Ranks are within the area's own level.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`level`	No	Filter by area level: 'nuts2' for EU NUTS-2 regions or 'municipality' for Dutch municipalities. Omit to include all levels.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of areas to return (default 200).
`country_iso3`	No	Optional ISO-3166 alpha-3 country code to restrict the result to one country's areas, e.g. 'NLD'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only, no personal data' and adds useful behavioral context that ranks are within the area's own level. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a concise parameter section. It is somewhat redundant with schema descriptions, but the additional context about area levels and ranking is justified.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers what areas are included, filters, ranking scope, and read-only behavior. It is sufficiently complete for this list tool, aside from the parameter value mismatch.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description introduces a conflicting value for the level parameter: it says 'gemeente' while the schema says 'municipality'. This ambiguity can mislead an agent when choosing the correct allowed value, so the description undermines rather than enhances the schema's baseline semantics.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List sub-national areas in the Cracks Index, ranked within their level.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from country-level siblings by explicitly stating it returns sub-national areas (EU NUTS-2 and Dutch municipalities) with composite score and rank.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to list sub-national areas with optional filters (level, country_iso3, limit). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the list-oriented purpose is evident relative to richer sibling tools like region_detail or indicator_ranking.

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?