Retrieves active humanitarian disasters from ReliefWeb and geocodes each event to its affected country so agents can identify current disaster locations.
ReliefWeb active humanitarian disasters, geocoded to the affected country.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| detail | No | short |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are 'active' and geocoded to the affected country, but says nothing about update frequency, source limitations, result ordering, pagination, or authentication/rate-limit behavior.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is appropriate for a simple one-parameter listing tool, though concision comes at the cost of missing semantics addressed elsewhere.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained. However, the tool has one undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no usage guidance, leaving significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.
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 single parameter 'detail' has no schema description and is not mentioned in the tool description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what 'detail' controls (e.g., short vs. full records), but it provides no information at all.
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 states a specific data source (ReliefWeb), resource (active humanitarian disasters), and a key transformation (geocoded to the affected country). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from disaster-oriented siblings such as disaster_alerts or fema_disasters.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool versus disaster_alerts, fema_disasters, or other disaster-related siblings. The phrase 'active humanitarian disasters' implies a use case, but the agent is left to infer selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.