Resolve a CBSA (Core Based Statistical Area) code to its metro area name. CBSA codes appear in spend signals and distribution data as 5-digit codes (e.g. '35620'). This tool converts them to human-readable names (e.g. '35620' → 'New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ'). Also handles non-metro codes like 'non-metro:US-TN'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The CBSA code to resolve (e.g. '35620' or 'non-metro:US-TX') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the core behavior (conversion) and special handling of non-metro codes. However, it does not mention error handling for invalid codes or the return format, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.
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?
Three sentences are concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy.
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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential functionality and context. Minor omission: no mention of error behavior for unrecognized codes.
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 schema already covers the parameter description (100% coverage), but the tool's description adds value by contextualizing where CBSA codes appear (spend signals, distribution data), supplementing the schema's example.
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 clearly states the tool resolves CBSA codes to metro area names, provides concrete examples of input/output, and distinguishes it by explicitly mentioning it handles both standard 5-digit codes and non-metro codes.
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 implicitly indicates usage when CBSA codes are encountered in spend signals/distribution data. There are no sibling tools performing similar functions, so no explicit usage exclusions are necessary, but guidance on when not to use is absent.
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.
