ooni_blocking_trendDaily time series of OONI censorship measurements for a website in a country — shows when blocking started, stopped, or intensified (e.g. Twitter in Iran day by day). Returns per-day OK / anomaly / confirmed-blocked counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Lookback window in days (default 30, max 365). | |
| domain | Yes | Website domain, e.g. "twitter.com". | |
| country | Yes | 2-letter country code, e.g. "IR". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "country": "IR",
+ "domain": "twitter.com"
+ },
+ {
+ "country": "RU",
+ "days": 180,
+ "domain": "facebook.com"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns per-day OK/anomaly/confirmed-blocked counts, which is useful behavioral context. No contradictions.
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 fluff, front-loaded with the tool's function. Every sentence adds value.
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?
No output schema, but the description explains the return format (per-day counts). For a trend tool with good annotations and complete parameter descriptions, this is adequate.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for days, domain, and country. The description mentions 'day by day' but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 it provides a daily time series of OONI censorship measurements for a website in a country, showing blocking start/stop/intensification. It uses specific verb 'shows' and resource 'blocking trend', distinguishing it from siblings like ooni_measurements and ooni_site_reachability.
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 implies usage for trend analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like ooni_app_blocking or ooni_site_reachability. No direct comparisons or exclusions are provided.
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.