Under review: country pairs that share a national blocklist are computed from Voidly's national blocklist layer, which let false positives through in open countries and is being rebuilt with a stricter rule, so pairs and overlap counts are withheld. Returns null pairs and a review object with the layer's window end as the data date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important behavioral context beyond the annotations: the data is under review due to false positives, the layer is being rebuilt, outputs are withheld as null pairs, and a review object includes the layer's window end as the data date. This is exactly the kind of operational caveat an agent needs.
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 two sentences and front-loads the critical status ('Under review') before explaining the reason and current return behavior. It is efficient, though dense.
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 no output schema and no parameters, the description fully explains what the tool currently returns: null pairs plus a review object with the data date. An agent has enough information to understand the tool's current unusable state and return shape.
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 zero parameters and the schema is complete, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is a 4.
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 identifies the resource as country pairs that share a national blocklist and states that the current output is withheld. It is specific enough to understand the tool's intended purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as get_national_blocklist.
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 phrase 'Under review' and 'pairs and overlap counts are withheld' implies the tool should not be used for substantive analysis right now. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use it or name an alternative such as get_national_blocklist.
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.