Search communes via the official geography API; defaults to department 974. Population has its source reference period. Read-only adapter. Cache 24h; stale replies are marked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| api_key | No | othernet agent token, used only by othernet authorization. Never sent to the government provider. | |
| department | No | French department code. Default 974 = La Réunion. | 974 |
| postal_code | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so 'Read-only adapter' adds nothing. The genuinely new context is 'Cache 24h; stale replies are marked,' which tells the agent results may be stale and how that is signaled — real behavioral value beyond the annotations.
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 definition is compact and front-loads the purpose before defaults and caching notes. The clause 'Population has its source reference period' is cryptic and slightly out of place, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
With no output schema and only 40% parameter coverage, the description should carry more weight. It covers purpose, default scope, and caching, but says nothing useful about undocumented parameters or what a result contains, leaving gaps for a 5-parameter search tool.
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 only 40%; q, limit, and postal_code are undocumented in both schema and description. The description's only parameter-related content ('defaults to department 974') merely duplicates the schema's own department description, adding no meaning, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb (search) and resource (communes) and names the backing source ('official geography API'). The resource name clearly separates it from government_address_search and government_enterprises_search, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.
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?
Usage is implied by the resource being searched, and 'defaults to department 974' gives a useful scoping hint. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing toward the sibling government_* search tools, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.