get_crime_yearFull-year VPD crime data: totals and ranked neighbourhood stats. Vancouver only, 2003-present.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | Year, 2003 to present | |
| includeIncidents | No | Include every incident point (large; default false) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | ||
| total | Yes | ||
| byType | Yes | ||
| incidents | No | ||
| byNeighbourhood | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "byNeighbourhood": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "lat": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "lon": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "count",
+ "lat",
+ "lon"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "byType": {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "incidents": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "approximate": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "category": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "confirms": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "count": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "flags": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "group": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "lat": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "lon": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "nhood": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "region": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reporter": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "confirmed": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "handle": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reports": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "role": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "enum": [
+ "curator",
+ "moderator"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "handle",
+ "role",
+ "reports",
+ "confirmed"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "resolves": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "severity": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sources": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "enum": [
+ "pending",
+ "active",
+ "resolved",
+ "hidden"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "time": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "source",
+ "category",
+ "type",
+ "title",
+ "lat",
+ "lon",
+ "time",
+ "severity"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "year": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "year",
+ "total",
+ "byType",
+ "byNeighbourhood"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the geographic and temporal coverage limits, which is useful but modest; no mention of response size or ranking methodology.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the data content and followed by the scope constraint. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.
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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description does not need to explain return values, and the params are schema-documented. The only gap is the lack of differentiation from sibling read tools, which an agent choosing between get_crime_year, get_incidents, and get_trends would benefit from.
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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (year range and includeIncidents cost warning), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond restating the 2003-present range already in the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.
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 a specific verb-resource pairing (full-year VPD crime data) plus the shape of what comes back (totals and ranked neighbourhood stats), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_incidents or get_trends, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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?
'Vancouver only, 2003-present' gives a scope constraint but no when-to-use versus get_incidents (which covers incident points) or get_trends. The usage context is implied by 'full-year' rather than stated as an explicit routing rule.
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.