Skip to main content
Glama

apibase

by io.github.whiteknightonhorse
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List WTO Reporting Economies

wto.trade.reporters
Read-onlyIdempotent

List all 288 reporting economies (countries and economic groups) recognized by the WTO time-series database, with their 3-digit numeric codes, ISO 3-letter country codes, and display names. Use these codes in wto.trade.data reporter_codes and partner_codes parameters. Includes individual WTO members (e.g. 840=USA, 156=China, 276=Germany, 392=Japan, 356=India, 036=Australia), geographic aggregates (e.g. 097=European Union, 413=LDC group), and the world total (000=World). Filter results client-side by name substring (e.g. "Africa", "European", "United") to find the relevant codes for your query. Data sourced from the WTO Statistics Division; economy composition reflects WTO membership.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filterNoOptional case-insensitive substring to filter reporters by name (e.g. "European", "Africa", "United"). Applied client-side — returns full list if omitted (288 economies).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent only when the call failed. Includes error code, message, request_id, and any provider-specific extras.
resultNoTool response payload. Shape varies per tool — consult the tool description and inputSchema. May be an object, array, string, or number depending on the upstream provider response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the filter is applied client-side, the list includes aggregates and the world total, and data is sourced from the WTO Statistics Division with composition reflecting membership. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a compact paragraph where every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, examples, and data source. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and examples, avoiding redundancy with the schema. There is no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple lookup tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it returns, how to filter, how to use the results in a sibling tool, and the scope of the data. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional 'filter' parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining the filtering intent with examples ('Africa', 'European', 'United') and clarifies that it is a client-side substring match, which the schema mentions but the description enriches with practical use cases.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all 288 reporting economies...' and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like wto.trade.data by explaining that this tool provides the codes to be used in data queries. It identifies the exact output (codes, names) and scope, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use these codes in wto.trade.data reporter_codes and partner_codes parameters.' This provides clear context that this is the lookup step before querying trade data. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use alternatives like wto.trade.indicators or wto.trade.topics, though the purpose is distinct enough.

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

All apibase 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