Election-aware country briefing that joins scheduled dates, current-regime scores and historical context. Verify each calendar date against its source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country_code | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code (e.g., IR, CN, MM) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the tool joins multiple data sources and warns that calendar dates should be verified against their source, which usefully flags potential data reliability issues. It does not mention auth or rate limits.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a concise verification caveat. No wasted words; each sentence contributes.
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, the description outlines the returned content (scheduled dates, current-regime scores, historical context) and includes a date-verification caution. This is adequate for a one-parameter read-only tool whose annotations already cover safety, though output format details remain unspecified.
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 coverage is 100% with the single country_code parameter fully documented as an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States it is an election-aware country briefing that joins scheduled dates, current-regime scores, and historical context. This is more specific than a generic country briefing and differentiates from get_upcoming_elections by including regime scores and history, though it does not name siblings.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the phrase 'election-aware country briefing' implies the context. It does not point to alternatives like get_upcoming_elections or country_brief. The verification note is a usage caution, not a selection guideline.
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.