Monitored location profile — assets, feed types, scan interval, term sets. Free — evaluate coverage and data freshness before purchasing threat assessments for risk_underwriting or security_operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | Region, e.g. 'Virginia' or 'Florida' | |
| location | Yes | Location slug, e.g. 'culpeper-town' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the tool is free and serves an evaluation purpose. However, it doesn't disclose read-only nature, output format, or potential limitations, leaving room for more transparency.
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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and contents, followed by the free attribute and use case. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.
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?
The description covers what the profile contains, why to use it (evaluation before purchase), and that it's free. It doesn't detail return structure, but the listed components give a clear picture. No output schema exists, so the description sufficiently covers the tool's essentials.
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% — both 'region' and 'location' have descriptions with examples. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already 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?
The description clearly states it returns a monitored location profile with specific contents (assets, feed types, scan interval, term sets). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_threat_sample or get_threat_summary, which focus on different aspects.
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 'Free — evaluate coverage and data freshness before purchasing threat assessments' explains the intended use case and why an agent would select this tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context makes the usage scenario clear.
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.
