list_countriesList countries supported by Finder with their ISO code and site url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| countries | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$defs": {
+ "Country": {
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "description": "Country ISO code to pass as `country`",
+ "title": "Code",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Country name",
+ "title": "Name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "description": "Finder site for the country",
+ "title": "Url",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "code",
+ "name",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "title": "Country",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "properties": {
+ "countries": {
+ "items": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/Country"
+ },
+ "title": "Countries",
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "countries"
+ ],
+ "title": "CountryList",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the returned fields, which the output schema also covers, so it contributes little 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?
A single front-loaded sentence stating the resource and its returned fields, with no filler or redundant restatement of the title.
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 parameters, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description only needs to state the resource and scope, which it does. Only the intended use case is left implicit.
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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is a 4.
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?
Specific verb (List) + resource (countries) with scope qualifier ('supported by Finder') and an inventory of what each entry contains (ISO code, site url). Siblings are all vacancy-related, so no plausible confusion exists.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. For a zero-argument reference-lookup tool the usage is largely self-evident, but the description never says what the list is needed for (e.g., resolving country codes before a search).
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.