Retrieve WHO Global Health Observatory data. Get life expectancy, obesity rates, alcohol consumption, air pollution, and other health indicators by country.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of data points to return | |
| country | No | ISO3 country code (e.g. USA, CHN, GBR). Omit for all countries. | |
| indicator | No | WHO indicator code (e.g. WHOSIS_000001 for life expectancy) or search term | WHOSIS_000001 |
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 disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, any authentication or rate limits, or data recency. The description only lists example data points, missing key 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 sentence of 21 words, efficiently summarizing the tool's purpose. No redundant or filler content.
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?
For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It explains what data can be retrieved but omits output format, pagination, or any limitations. Given the lack of annotations, more context would be beneficial.
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%, so the description does not need to add much. It provides example indicators (life expectancy, obesity) which adds slight context beyond the schema's indicator parameter description, but no new parameter-level details.
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 retrieves WHO Global Health Observatory data and lists specific health indicators (life expectancy, obesity, etc.). This verb-resource combination is distinct from sibling tools (genetic variants, NIH grants, protein expression).
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or provide alternatives. However, the domain differs from siblings, reducing confusion. The parameter descriptions hint at usage (ISO3 codes, indicator codes), but no direct guidance is given.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct health data domain: genetics, grants, protein expression, and WHO indicators. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow the 'get_<domain>' pattern with consistent snake_case verb_noun structure.
4 tools is well-scoped for a health data server, covering major areas without being overwhelming.
Tools cover genetics, grants, expression, and WHO data, but missing clinical trials or disease-specific databases. Minor gap.