list_subdivisionsList the regional subdivisions (federal states, regions, cantons, etc.) of a European country, with their codes and category. Use the returned codes to scope school_holidays. EUROPE-focused. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, e.g. "DE", "FR", "CH". | |
| language | No | Language for names, ISO 639-1 (default "EN"). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "country": "DE"
+ },
+ {
+ "country": "CH",
+ "language": "fr"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds 'Keyless' (no authentication needed) and 'EUROPE-focused' scope, providing extra behavioral context 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?
Three concise sentences with no redundancy. Action verb first, followed by output summary, usage hint, and scope/access notes. 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?
No output schema exists, so description should detail return structure. It mentions 'codes and category' but lacks specifics (e.g., list format, field names, behavior with language parameter). Adequate but not fully complete.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description does not add input parameter details beyond listing 'codes and category' as output. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.
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?
Description clearly states 'List the regional subdivisions... of a European country' with specific examples (federal states, regions, cantons) and notes the output includes codes and categories. Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_countries and ties to school_holidays.
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?
Provides explicit guidance to 'Use the returned codes to scope school_holidays' and notes 'EUROPE-focused', implying geographic restriction. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, but the context is clear enough.
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.