The Cracks Index

Score history over time

score_trends

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return one area's composite-score history across every snapshot.

Given an area identifier — an ISO-3166 alpha-3 country code, an EU NUTS-2 region code or a Dutch municipality CBS GM-code — walks every published Cracks Index snapshot and returns that area's composite score and rank at each point in time, plus the net change from the first to the most recent snapshot.

Read-only, area-level aggregates only, no personal data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`area`	Yes	An ISO-3166 alpha-3 country code (e.g. 'NLD') or an area code of an EU NUTS-2 region or Dutch municipality (e.g. 'NL32', 'GM0363'). Case-insensitive.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: it 'walks every published Cracks Index snapshot', returns 'net change from the first to the most recent snapshot', and explicitly states 'no personal data' — details beyond the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening summary, a detail paragraph on input and behavior, and a brief scope note. No filler — every sentence adds value.

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?

With one parameter fully documented in the schema, a detailed description of the output (score, rank, net change), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete for its complexity. It covers input format, behavior, and output meaning.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the 'area' parameter description specifying accepted codes and case-insensitivity. The description reinforces this by listing identifier types and their examples, but adds no significant new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states 'Return one area's composite-score history across every snapshot', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It further details that it returns composite score, rank, and net change, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like area_statistics or top_movers.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: for a single area's historical trend. It specifies accepted identifier types (ISO, NUTS-2, CBS) and notes it is read-only, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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?