Look up a Philippine geographic entity by its 10-digit PSGC code. Returns the full entity record including name, level, parent, population, and classification data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | 10-digit PSGC code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / code / patternAdded value: +"^\\d{10}$"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (full entity record with specific fields), which is useful, but it does not disclose error behavior for invalid or non-existent codes, or any other operational caveats. For a simple lookup, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.
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 long, with the first sentence stating purpose and the second listing return contents. It is front-loaded, free of fluff, and every word adds value.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it identifies input, purpose, and return fields. The only missing piece is potential error/edge-case behavior, but that is not critical for a straightforward lookup operation.
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 fully describes the single parameter 'code' with pattern and length constraints, plus a description. The tool description reinforces that the code is a Philippine PSGC code but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 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') and clearly identifies the resource ('Philippine geographic entity') and the key identifier (10-digit PSGC code). It distinguishes from siblings like batch_lookup and search by focusing on a single entity lookup by code and specifying the returned record contents.
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 clearly implies the primary use case: when you have a 10-digit PSGC code and need the full entity record. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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.