Skip to main content
Glama

ISO country NZ

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

cc-nz

Public ISO 3166-1 record for NZ.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoGit ref name; discarded after the shape check
urlNoHTTPS URL to normalize or cite
cityNoCity name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call
feedNoPublic RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded
hostNoPublic hostname
jsonNoJSON text to validate; discarded after the check
pathNoFile path to check; no disk access
zoneNoIANA timezone name
queryNoSearch text; discarded after the length check
websiteNoPublic 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.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, but it only says 'Public ISO 3166-1 record,' implying a benign read without explaining side effects, idempotency, or authentication needs. It does not disclose that most parameters are discarded or that the result is a static record, leaving important behavioral traits to the schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is one short sentence with no wasted words and is easy to scan. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification, so the clean structure earns credit without making the content informative.

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?

For a tool with ten parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the returned record contains, which parameters matter, or how the tool behaves, so an agent cannot reliably determine a correct call beyond guessing a static lookup.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning and does not explain why a static ISO record accepts ten unrelated parameters. The schema compensates, but the description misses the chance to clarify which parameters actually influence the result.

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 names a specific resource (the ISO 3166-1 record for NZ), so an agent can guess it returns country data. However, it lacks a verb and does not state what operation the tool performs, making it unclear whether this is a lookup, a validation, or a static fact. The presence of ten unrelated input parameters further muddies the intended purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus any sibling tool. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to alternatives, even though sibling tools like iana-zones, geo-hint, and domain-shape could overlap conceptually. An agent must infer entirely from the name and schema.

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

All ISO country NZ toolsInspect
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.

Resources