regionsWatchmode supported regions/countries for streaming availability (US, UK, CA, AU, etc.). Returns 2-letter codes. Use to constrain title_sources or list_titles to a region.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Available regions",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the return format (2-letter codes) and giving example values, which helps the agent understand the output beyond the 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?
The description is exceptionally concise with two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and provides examples; the second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words.
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 has no parameters, no required params, and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns and how to use it, leaving no gaps in understanding for an agent.
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?
The tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information; it instead provides context on how to use the output with other tools, which is helpful.
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 tool lists supported regions/countries for streaming availability and returns 2-letter codes, with concrete examples (US, UK, CA, AU). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining its usage with title_sources or list_titles.
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 says 'Use to constrain title_sources or list_titles to a region,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the guidance is 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.