get_settlementsReturn complete stored records and official source links for up to 20 settlement IDs produced by search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| settlement_ids | Yes | Settlement identifiers returned by search to retrieve together. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / settlement_ids / descriptionPrevious value: -"Settlement identifiers to retrieve together. Use this for every finalist from a broad scan before composing the final answer."New value: +"Settlement identifiers returned by search to retrieve together."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is clear. The description adds that it returns 'complete stored records and official source links', which indicates a richer response than a summary. This is useful context beyond annotations. No contradiction exists.
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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes key constraints (up to 20 IDs). There is zero waste; every word contributes 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?
With one parameter (fully covered by schema), strong annotations, an output schema present, and a clear description, the tool is well documented. The description explains the use case ('produced by search') and the batch limit, which is sufficient. Minor gap: it doesn't mention error behavior or what happens if an ID is invalid, but given the presence of an output schema, this is acceptable.
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 the parameter 'settlement_ids' is well documented already. The description adds that these are 'produced by search' and 'to retrieve together', which reinforces the batch context, but it doesn't add new semantics beyond the schema's description. 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 the tool returns complete stored records and official source links for up to 20 settlement IDs produced by search. The verb 'Return' is specific, the resource is 'settlements', and the scope ('up to 20') is defined. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling 'get_settlement' (singular), though the pluralization and 'up to 20' partially imply a batch operation.
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 says 'produced by search', which implies this tool is used after search results are obtained, providing a context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or mention alternatives like 'get_settlement' for single-record retrieval. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: dataset metadata, single-record retrieval, batch retrieval, single search, and batch search. No overlapping boundaries or potential for misselection.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_dataset_info, get_settlement, get_settlements, search_settlements, search_settlements_batch). Verbs and noun plurality are used logically and consistently.
With exactly 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its apparent purpose of settlement searching and retrieval. Each tool fills a necessary role without redundancy, making the count ideal.
The tool surface fully covers the read-only workflow: dataset-level info, targeted retrieval (single and batch), and search (single and batch). No obvious gaps for the domain, as update/create/delete operations are not implied by the server's purpose.