ISO country LU

cc-lu

Public ISO 3166-1 record for LU.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cc-lu"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ref`	No	Git ref name; discarded after the shape check
`url`	No	HTTPS URL to normalize or cite
`city`	No	City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call
`feed`	No	Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded
`host`	No	Public hostname
`json`	No	JSON text to validate; discarded after the check
`path`	No	File path to check; no disk access
`zone`	No	IANA timezone name
`query`	No	Search text; discarded after the length check
`website`	No	Public https website (homepage domain) to check for agent readiness: robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap.xml, extractable HTML. Bounded, identified, robots-respecting.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / website

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Public https website (homepage domain) to check for agent readiness: robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap.xml, extractable HTML. Bounded, identified, robots-respecting.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedSep 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only says the record is 'Public'. It does not disclose return shape, side effects, parameter handling, or security/privacy expectations, although 'discarded' hints in the schema provide some partial context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The one-line description is underspecified rather than efficiently concise. It front-loads the resource but omits any action or usage information needed for a 10-parameter, zero-required tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not say what the call returns, what inputs are meaningful, or why most parameters are discarded.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description itself adds no parameter semantics; the parameter descriptions in the schema already explain each field.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies a specific resource (ISO 3166-1 record for LU) but never states an action; it is a noun phrase rather than 'get' or 'lookup'. It also does not distinguish the tool from siblings, leaving the agent to infer what calling it accomplishes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, no mention of the 10 optional parameters, and no condition that would select it. The description gives no usage context at all.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ISO country LU tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.