list_countriesList all countries with ISO codes, capitals, phone codes, currencies, and regions. Returns ~250 countries. Useful for building dropdowns or validating country data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _apiKey | Yes | CountryStateCity API key |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Total number of countries returned | |
| countries | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds behavioral context like returning ~250 countries and specific fields, which goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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 with no waste. The first sentence lists the purpose and data, the second gives a typical use case. Front-loaded and 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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is fully adequate. It explains the return fields and typical use, covering all necessary context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter _apiKey, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'countries', specifies exactly what data is returned (ISO codes, capitals, etc.), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_cities or get_states.
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 explicitly mentions use cases like 'building dropdowns or validating country data', providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different to avoid confusion.
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.
Several tools overlap enough to cause misselection: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are functionally identical right now, ask_pipeworx_grounded and validate_claim both handle factual lookup/verification, and ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence are near duplicates in scope. The country/state/city tools are distinct but sit in a pile of unrelated Pipeworx tools, adding confusion.
All names are lower_snake_case and families like polymarket_* and ask_pipeworx* help group tools, but the verb_noun convention is inconsistent: entity_profile, deep_research, recent_alerts, and pipeworx_trending are noun phrases, while remember/forget/subscribe are bare verbs. It is readable but not a predictable pattern.
34 tools is above the practical ceiling for a focused MCP server, and the mismatch is severe: only 3 tools match the 'Country State City' name while 31 belong to a broad Pipeworx platform. A geographic server would need roughly 3-6 focused tools; this surface is bloted.
For the stated Country State City domain, list_countries/get_states/get_cities provide the basic hierarchy, but there is no city search, country/state detail lookup, or attribute discovery beyond the three list endpoints, making the useful geographic surface thin. For the Pipeworx domain the coverage is broader, but that confirms the identity mismatch and obscures the server's actual purpose.