Look up multiple PSGC entities in one call. Pass an array of 10-digit codes (max 50). Returns results in the same order as input, with null for codes not found.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| codes | Yes | Array of 10-digit PSGC codes (1-50) |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two critical behaviors: results are returned in the same order as input, and codes not found yield null. The max-50 limit is also stated. These go beyond basic schema information and are highly useful for the agent.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by input/output specifics. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose, input constraints, and return behavior (order and null handling). It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 input schema already covers 100% of the single parameter, including pattern, length, and description. The description adds little new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'Look up' with the resource 'PSGC entities', and explicitly differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'multiple' and 'in one call'. This clearly distinguishes it from the likely single-entity 'lookup' sibling.
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 provides clear usage context: pass an array of codes and receive ordered results with nulls for missing codes. It implies the tool is for batch operations but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: lookup single code, batch lookup, search by name, list by geographic level, list children, get hierarchy, and query by population. There is no overlap; even the two lookup tools are differentiated by batch vs single.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., batch_lookup, get_hierarchy, list_children), but 'lookup' and 'search' are single words, and 'list_by_type' and 'query_by_population' include prepositions. The naming is clear and readable but not perfectly uniform.
7 tools is well-scoped for a geographic entity server. Each tool provides a distinct function without being too few (covering essential lookups, search, and listing) or too many (no redundancy).
The tool set covers all common read operations for geographic entities: single and batch lookup, name search, listing by type and children, hierarchy, and population queries. There are no obvious gaps for the intended read-only domain.