Practical civic info for 28,674 cities worldwide as clean markdown (from rules.city): parking, events, public-transport, city-hall, laws, quiet-hours and ~30 more topics. 5 credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | City slug, e.g. berlin or cluj-napoca | |
| topic | Yes | Topic slug, e.g. parking, events, public-transport | |
| api_key | Yes | Your DACIX API key (dacix_sk_...). Get one with store_register. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must cover behavior. It mentions credit cost and markdown output but lacks details on rate limits, data freshness, or read-only nature.
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?
Singlesentence format is highly concise, front-loads key info (city count, output format, topics, cost) with no superfluous text.
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 no output schema, it adequately describes return format (markdown) and scope. Could mention that it is a read operation and clarify api_key purpose.
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 covers 100% of params with brief descriptions. The description adds value by listing example topics (parking, events, etc.) and clarifying 'topic' usage, going beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states it provides civic info for cities with specific topics and city count, distinguishing it from sibling tools which are unrelated.
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?
While no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given, the tool's purpose is clear and no similar tools exist, making guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.