advisoryGet the current US travel advisory for a single country. Pass the country NAME (recommended), e.g. "Japan", "Mexico". A State Department 2-letter country code also works (note: these are NOT ISO codes — e.g. Japan is "JA").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | Yes | Country name (recommended), e.g. "Mexico". Partial names match. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "country": "Japan"
+ },
+ {
+ "country": "Mexico"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that partial names match and a code alternative, but no major behavioral traits 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 fluff, front-loaded with purpose then usage details. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient. Could mention output format briefly, but not necessary given low complexity.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces partial match and code info, but adds limited value over the schema description.
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 'Get the current US travel advisory for a single country' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'advisories' by specifying single country vs. likely multiple or all.
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 recommends using country name and mentions an alternative State Department code. It implies use for a single country but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with sibling tools.
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.