comtrade_country_codesLook up UN Comtrade reporter/partner codes for trade queries (e.g., "842" = US, "156" = China). Note Comtrade uses 842 for the US, not the ISO 840. Returns code and country name pairs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | Instructions for using numeric codes in parameters | |
| countries | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / countries / descriptionRemoved value: -"List of countries with numeric codes"Output schema / properties / note / descriptionPrevious value: -"Usage guidance for numeric codes"New value: +"Instructions for using numeric codes in parameters"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "countries": {
+ "description": "List of countries with numeric codes",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "full_name": {
+ "description": "Full country name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "label": {
+ "description": "Country label or abbreviation",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "numeric_code": {
+ "description": "ISO numeric country code",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "note": {
+ "description": "Usage guidance for numeric codes",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "note",
+ "countries"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark as read-only and idempotent. Description adds that it returns code and country name pairs, and highlights the unusual code for US, adding value beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose and a key nuance about US code. Highly efficient.
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?
Given no parameters and existence of output schema, description fully explains what the tool does and returns. Complete for its simplicity.
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?
No parameters; schema coverage is 100% trivially. Description adds no parameter info, but with 0 params this is acceptable. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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?
Clearly states it looks up UN Comtrade reporter/partner codes for trade queries, provides examples, and differentiates from siblings like comtrade_top_commodities and comtrade_trade_data.
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?
Indicates usage for 'trade queries' and explicitly notes the non-standard US code (842 vs ISO 840), giving clear context. Could mention when not to use, but sufficient.
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.