Return the jurisdiction_coverage state-machine status for one state (abbreviation or name), or the full 51-jurisdiction coverage matrix if state is omitted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It mentions 'state-machine status' but does not disclose side effects, auth needs, or rate limits; it is implicitly read-only but not stated.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and parameter behavior without any extraneous text.
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?
Given no output schema, the description could better explain the return format of the state-machine status, but the tool is simple with one optional parameter, so the deficit is minor.
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 description adds significant meaning to the sole parameter 'state', explaining it accepts abbreviation or name and that omission returns the full matrix, going beyond the sparse schema.
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 the tool returns jurisdiction coverage state-machine status, specifying the resource and differentiating between a single state and the full matrix.
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 description implies when to use the tool (for one state or all) but does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative sibling tools, which would improve selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
