List the top cities by number of upcoming events, with city page slugs usable in get_city_events.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_top_cities"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max cities (default 25, max 120) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the high-level behavior but does not disclose return format, ordering guarantees, or read-only nature. The mention of city page slugs adds some behavioral context, but the description is otherwise minimal.
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 that front-loads the core action, includes a criterion (number of upcoming events), and references a sibling tool. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose and integration point. It could be more complete by mentioning what fields are returned (e.g., city name, count, slug), but it is adequate given the tool's simplicity.
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%, with the single 'limit' parameter fully described (default 25, max 120). The description does not add additional semantics about the parameter, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 lists top cities by number of upcoming events, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing city page slugs usable in get_city_events, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 a chaining workflow with get_city_events ('slugs usable in get_city_events'), suggesting when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternative tools like search_events or get_city_events.
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.