mcp2ws

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific geographic or cultural data attributes (e.g., capital city, currency, flag, phone code). There is no overlap in functionality, and the descriptions precisely indicate what each tool retrieves, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent PascalCase pattern with descriptive compound names (e.g., CountryCurrency, ListOfContinentsByName). The naming is predictable and readable throughout the set, with no deviations or mixed conventions.
Tool Count3/5
With 21 tools, the count is borderline high for a geographic data server, potentially feeling heavy. While each tool serves a distinct purpose, the number might be excessive for typical agent workflows, though not extreme.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for geographic and cultural data, including country details, currencies, languages, and continents. It supports both specific queries (e.g., CapitalCity) and bulk listings (e.g., FullCountryInfoAllCountries), with no obvious gaps in the domain.
Average 1.9/5 across 21 of 21 tools scored. Lowest: 1.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only mentions 'SOAP method', which is a technical detail that doesn't explain what the tool does, its safety profile, permissions needed, rate limits, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief but not concise in a helpful way; it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. A single phrase like 'SOAP method: CurrencyName' wastes space on technical jargon without adding value, failing to front-load useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (1 parameter with no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's function, usage, parameters, or behavior, leaving the agent unable to understand or invoke it correctly in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the parameter's purpose, format, or constraints. Without any details on what 'sCurrencyISOCode' represents or how to use it, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'SOAP method: CurrencyName' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with technical jargon. It fails to specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve currency details, convert names, or validate codes) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'ListOfCurrenciesByName' or 'CountryCurrency'. This provides no meaningful purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like 'ListOfCurrenciesByName' and 'CountryCurrency', the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent with no information to make an informed selection among related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states 'SOAP method: LanguageISOCode,' which reveals nothing about the tool's behavior—such as whether it's read-only or mutating, what errors might occur, or what the output format looks like. This leaves the agent with no understanding of how the tool operates beyond its name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise with a single phrase, this is a case of under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description is too sparse to be useful, lacking essential information that would help an agent. It doesn't front-load key details, and the single sentence doesn't earn its place by adding meaningful value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a tool with one parameter but no schema descriptions or annotations) and absence of an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what the parameter means, or what to expect in return. For a tool in a set of country/language utilities, this leaves critical gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (sLanguageName) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds no details about this parameter—not explaining what sLanguageName represents (e.g., a full language name like 'English'), expected formats, or examples. With zero compensation for the schema gap, this fails to aid parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'SOAP method: LanguageISOCode' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added meaning. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., 'retrieve ISO code for a language' or 'convert language name to ISO code'), nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like LanguageName or ListOfLanguagesByCode. The purpose remains vague and unhelpful for agent selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools like LanguageName (which might convert ISO code to language name) and ListOfLanguagesByCode (which lists languages), the description offers no context for selection. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description reveals nothing about what the tool actually does - whether it retrieves flag images, validates flag data, returns flag information, or performs some other operation. It doesn't indicate if this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be needed, or what format the output takes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise (only 4 words), this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to convey essential information about the tool's purpose and usage. The single sentence doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful guidance to an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool does, how to use it, what the parameter means, or what to expect as output. Given the complexity of distinguishing this from 19 sibling country-related tools, the description fails to provide the minimal necessary context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides zero information about the single required parameter 'sCountryISOCode'. With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter documentation in the description, the agent has no understanding of what this parameter represents, what format it expects (2-letter ISO code? 3-letter?), or what values are valid. The description doesn't even mention that a parameter is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'SOAP method: CountryFlag' is tautological - it restates the tool name 'CountryFlag' with technical implementation details (SOAP method) rather than explaining what the tool does. It doesn't specify the verb (what action it performs) or the resource (what it operates on), nor does it distinguish this tool from its many siblings that also deal with country information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 19 sibling tools that all relate to country information (including CountryISOCode, CountryName, FullCountryInfo, etc.), the agent has no indication whether this tool retrieves, validates, generates, or processes country flags, or how it differs from related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it offers no information about what the tool does (e.g., read-only lookup, potential side effects, error handling, or output format). The phrase 'SOAP method' hints at a web service protocol but does not clarify behavior, making it inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single phrase, but this brevity leads to under-specification rather than effective communication. While it avoids unnecessary words, it lacks the front-loaded clarity needed for an AI agent, making it inefficient in conveying purpose or usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a lookup tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., a capital city name), how to interpret inputs, or any behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no semantic information about the parameter 'sCountryISOCode'. It does not explain what this parameter represents (e.g., a country ISO code), its expected format, or how it influences the tool's operation, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'SOAP method: CapitalCity' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name with technical protocol information. It fails to specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves the capital city of a country) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'CountryName' or 'FullCountryInfo'. The purpose remains vague beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools (e.g., 'CountryName' or 'FullCountryInfo') that might serve similar or overlapping purposes. Usage is entirely implied, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe any traits: it doesn't indicate if this is a read/write operation, what the output format might be, error conditions, or any constraints. The SOAP reference is technical but unhelpful for an AI agent without additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single phrase—but this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification. While it's front-loaded and wastes no words, it fails to provide essential information, making it inefficient rather than appropriately sized. It earns a middle score because it's not verbose, but it's too sparse to be helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose, parameter usage, behavioral traits, or output, leaving the agent unable to use it effectively. A simple read operation like this needs at least basic functional explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter 'sISOCurrencyCode' is undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what the parameter represents (e.g., a currency code like 'USD'), valid formats, or examples. This leaves the parameter's purpose and usage ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'SOAP method: CountriesUsingCurrency' is tautological—it restates the tool name with technical jargon (SOAP method) but doesn't explain what the tool actually does. It lacks a clear verb+resource statement like 'Returns countries that use a specified currency.' While it hints at currency-related functionality, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like CountryCurrency or CurrencyName.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like CountryCurrency (likely returns currency for a country) and CurrencyName (likely returns name for a currency code), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'SOAP method', which implies a web service call but doesn't specify whether it's read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or handles errors. This is inadequate for a tool with unknown behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one phrase) but under-specified—it's too brief to be helpful. While not verbose, it fails to convey essential information, making it inefficient rather than appropriately sized. It's front-loaded but lacks substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a SOAP method with one parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's function, parameter usage, or expected output, leaving critical gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameter. It adds no meaning beyond the schema—doesn't clarify what 'sCountryISOCode' represents (e.g., ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code), valid formats, or examples. The single required parameter remains undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'SOAP method: CountryCurrency' is tautological—it restates the tool name with technical jargon but doesn't explain what the tool does. It lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'retrieve', 'convert') and resource (e.g., 'currency for a country'), making the purpose vague. Compared to siblings like 'CurrencyName' or 'CountryName', it's unclear how this tool differs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'CurrencyName', 'CountriesUsingCurrency', and 'ListOfCurrenciesByCode', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be needed, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like. The SOAP reference is technical but doesn't explain practical behavior for an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('SOAP method: CountryIntPhoneCode') with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise—it lacks essential information that would make it useful. The structure is simple but doesn't front-load key details about the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or provide any context needed for an AI agent to use it effectively. The complexity of country/phone code lookup demands more explanation than provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'sCountryISOCode', and the tool description adds no semantic information about this parameter. It doesn't explain what a 'CountryISOCode' is, provide examples (like 'US' or 'GB'), mention format constraints, or relate it to the tool's purpose. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'SOAP method: CountryIntPhoneCode' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added value. It vaguely suggests this is a SOAP-based method related to country international phone codes, but doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., 'retrieve the international phone code for a country' or 'look up phone dialing prefixes'). Compared to siblings like 'CountryFlag' or 'CountryCurrency', the purpose remains unclear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention what problem it solves, what inputs it expects beyond the schema, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'CountryISOCode' or 'FullCountryInfo'. There's no context about use cases or prerequisites, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description 'SOAP method: CountryName' reveals nothing about the tool's behavior—whether it's a read operation, what it returns, error conditions, or any side effects. It fails to provide any meaningful context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single phrase, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it avoids unnecessary words, it fails to convey essential information, making it ineffective despite its brevity. It's front-loaded but lacks substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a tool with one parameter but no schema descriptions or annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect in return, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (sCountryISOCode) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds no details about the parameter, such as what ISO code format is expected (e.g., 'US', 'GB'), examples, or constraints. It doesn't compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'SOAP method: CountryName' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name without clarifying what it does. It doesn't specify the verb (e.g., 'get', 'lookup', 'retrieve') or the resource (e.g., 'country name from ISO code'), leaving the purpose vague. Compared to siblings like 'CountryISOCode' or 'CountryCurrency', it's unclear how this tool differs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'ListOfCountryNamesByCode' and 'FullCountryInfo', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description offers no help in distinguishing this tool's use case from related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what kind of data it returns, whether it has rate limits, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral characteristics. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the technical protocol.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just 4 words. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's technically 'front-loaded' (there's only one piece of information), it fails to provide the essential context needed for tool selection and invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name ('FullCountryInfo'), the complete lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is woefully incomplete. It provides none of the information needed to understand what the tool does, when to use it, what it requires, or what it returns - making it essentially useless for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and a single required parameter (sCountryISOCode), the description provides no information about what this parameter means, what format it expects, or what values are valid. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding of the input requirements beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'SOAP method: FullCountryInfo' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name with technical protocol information. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs (retrieve? display? analyze?) or what 'FullCountryInfo' actually means. While the name suggests it provides comprehensive country information, the description fails to articulate this purpose clearly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools available (CapitalCity, CountryCurrency, CountryFlag, etc.). There's no indication of what distinguishes 'FullCountryInfo' from other country-related tools or when it would be the appropriate choice among alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what authentication might be required, error conditions, rate limits, or what format the response takes. The SOAP protocol mention is technical but doesn't describe the tool's actual behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (just 4 words), but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's technically front-loaded (the entire description is one short phrase), it doesn't contain enough substance to be considered well-structured for tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what parameters mean, or what to expect in return. Given the complexity implied by the SOAP protocol and the rich sibling tool ecosystem, this description leaves the agent with almost no useful information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the single parameter 'sCountryName' is completely undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about this parameter - no explanation of what format the country name should be in, whether it accepts partial names, case sensitivity, or examples. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'SOAP method: CountryISOCode' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name with technical protocol information. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., 'Returns ISO country code for a given country name'). While it mentions SOAP method context, this doesn't clarify the tool's functional purpose beyond its name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools available (like CountryName, CountryCurrency, FullCountryInfo, etc.). There's no indication of what problem this tool solves or what context would make it the appropriate choice among the 20+ country-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe any behavioral traits—such as whether it's a read-only lookup, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns structured data. The mention of 'SOAP method' is technical but doesn't clarify the tool's behavior or output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, but this brevity results in under-specification rather than effective communication. However, based on the scoring rubric, conciseness is scored independently, and this is front-loaded with no wasted words, earning a high score for structure alone.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose, usage, behavior, or parameters, failing to provide enough context for an AI agent to use it effectively among its siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the single parameter 'sISOCode'. It doesn't explain what the parameter represents (e.g., ISO language code), its format, or valid values, leaving the parameter undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'SOAP method: LanguageName' restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It doesn't specify the action (e.g., retrieve, convert, validate) or the resource involved (e.g., language name from ISO code). This is a tautology that provides minimal clarity beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., LanguageISOCode, ListOfLanguagesByCode). The description doesn't indicate the context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe any traits—such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what it returns. The mention of 'SOAP method' is technical but doesn't clarify behavior, leaving critical gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes space on 'SOAP method:' without adding value, failing to front-load useful details. While brief, it doesn't earn its place effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple tool with 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of currencies sorted by name) and basic usage, but it only provides a tautological label. This leaves the agent guessing about functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's acceptable here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'SOAP method: ListOfCurrenciesByName' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name with 'SOAP method:' prefixed. It doesn't specify what the tool does (e.g., retrieve, list, or fetch currencies) or differentiate it from siblings like 'ListOfCurrenciesByCode'. The purpose remains vague beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'ListOfCurrenciesByCode' and 'CurrencyName', the description offers no context, exclusions, or explicit comparisons. This leaves the agent without direction for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. It states it's a SOAP method, hinting at a web service call, but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., detailed country data), potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the SOAP method type, yet fails to convey the tool's purpose or usage effectively, making it feel sparse rather than optimally structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (likely retrieving comprehensive data for all countries), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, it lacks details on return values, data format, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the absence of parameters, aligning with the baseline expectation for such cases.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'SOAP method: FullCountryInfoAllCountries' is tautological as it essentially restates the tool name with minimal additional context. While it specifies it's a SOAP method, it doesn't clearly articulate what the tool does (e.g., retrieves comprehensive data about all countries) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'FullCountryInfo' (which likely handles single countries).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as comparing it to 'FullCountryInfo' for single-country data or other list tools like 'ListOfCountryNamesByCode'. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. 'SOAP method' indicates the protocol but doesn't describe what the tool returns (continent list format), whether it's a read operation, potential errors, or any behavioral characteristics. The description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (5 words) but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it doesn't waste words, it also doesn't provide enough meaningful content. The single sentence structure is clear but lacks the substantive information needed for the agent to understand the tool's purpose and behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's apparent simplicity (no parameters) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. For a tool that presumably returns continent data, the description should at minimum explain what kind of data is returned and the basic operation. The current description leaves too many open questions about the tool's behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist. While it could theoretically mention that no inputs are required, the absence of parameters makes this dimension straightforward - the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'SOAP method: ListOfContinentsByName' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name with a protocol prefix. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., 'Retrieve a list of continents sorted alphabetically by name'). While it distinguishes from some siblings by mentioning 'ByName', it doesn't clarify the fundamental purpose beyond what's already in the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate, when to choose it over other continent-related tools like 'ListOfContinentsByCode', or any prerequisites for its use. The agent receives zero usage context from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'SOAP method' which hints at a web service call, but doesn't describe what the tool does behaviorally (e.g., returns a list, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the output might be in). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('SOAP method: ListOfCurrenciesByCode'), which could be efficient, but it's under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It lacks essential details about the tool's function, making it feel incomplete rather than optimally brief. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single phrase doesn't provide enough value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a SOAP method with no parameters but likely returning data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of currencies by code), how to interpret results, or any behavioral aspects. For a data retrieval tool in a context with many siblings, more detail is needed to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'SOAP method: ListOfCurrenciesByCode' restates the tool name with minimal added value. It indicates this is a SOAP method but doesn't specify what it actually does (e.g., retrieves, lists, or returns currency information). Compared to sibling tools like 'CurrencyName' or 'ListOfCurrenciesByName', it doesn't clarify how this tool differs in purpose or scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'ListOfCurrenciesByName' and 'CurrencyName', there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate, what context it serves, or any prerequisites for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it's a SOAP method, which implies a network call but doesn't reveal critical traits like whether it's read-only, its response format, error handling, or performance considerations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform an AI agent about its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it avoids unnecessary words, it fails to front-load key details about the tool's purpose or behavior, making it less helpful for quick understanding. It earns a middle score for brevity but lacks effective structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a list operation with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of language codes or full details), how results are formatted, or any usage constraints. This gap makes it inadequate for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it appropriately avoids redundancy. A baseline score of 4 is justified as it doesn't mislead or omit necessary parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'SOAP method: ListOfLanguagesByCode' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name with minimal added context. While it hints at listing languages by code, it lacks specificity about what resources are returned (e.g., language names, codes, or full details) and doesn't clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'LanguageISOCode' or 'ListOfLanguagesByName'. This leaves the purpose vague for an AI agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and fails to differentiate it from related tools such as 'ListOfLanguagesByName' or 'LanguageISOCode'. This absence of usage instructions makes it difficult for an AI agent to select the appropriate tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states this is a 'SOAP method', which hints at a read-only web service call but doesn't confirm safety, performance characteristics, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits (like whether it's idempotent, has rate limits, or returns structured data) completely unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—just one phrase—and front-loaded with the key information (SOAP method). There's no wasted text, though it could be argued it's too brief given the lack of other context. For a zero-parameter tool, this brevity is mostly appropriate, earning a high score for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of continents with codes), how to interpret results, or any prerequisites. While the schema handles inputs, the output and behavioral context are missing, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use effectively without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and the baseline for this scenario is 4. The mention of 'SOAP method' adds minimal context about the interface but doesn't detract from the parameter clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'SOAP method: ListOfContinentsByCode' restates the tool name with minimal added value. It indicates this is a SOAP method, which provides some technical context, but doesn't clearly state what the tool does (e.g., retrieves continent data by code). Compared to siblings like 'ListOfContinentsByName', it doesn't differentiate the 'by code' aspect beyond what's already in the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'ListOfContinentsByName' and 'ListOfCountryNamesGroupedByContinent', the description doesn't explain the specific use case for retrieving continents by code rather than by name or in other groupings. The SOAP method mention implies a technical context but offers no practical usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the SOAP method name, without detailing what the tool does (e.g., read-only operation, data format, potential errors, or rate limits). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to understand its behavior beyond a basic name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise but under-specified—it merely repeats the SOAP method name without additional context. While it's brief, it fails to provide meaningful information, making it less helpful than it could be for its length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of sibling tools and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., grouped data structure) or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool in a rich context with many alternatives, more detail is needed to be fully useful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is acceptable here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool calls a SOAP method named 'ListOfCountryNamesGroupedByContinent', which implies it retrieves country names organized by continent. However, it's vague about the exact purpose—it doesn't specify if it returns a list, map, or structured data, and it doesn't clearly differentiate from siblings like 'ListOfCountryNamesByCode' or 'ListOfContinentsByName'. The description relies on the method name without elaboration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'ListOfCountryNamesByCode' or 'FullCountryInfoAllCountries'. Without this, users must infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but only states it's a SOAP method. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, returns structured data, or has any constraints (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that names the method. It's front-loaded with the key identifier, but could be more informative. There's no wasted text, though it risks under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple tool with 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of country names sorted by name) or how it differs from siblings, making it inadequate for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's acceptable here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it doesn't mislead or omit required details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it's a SOAP method named 'ListOfCountryNamesByName', which implies it lists country names, but it's vague about the exact purpose (e.g., sorted by name, returns a list). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'ListOfCountryNamesByCode' or 'CountryName', leaving ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'ListOfCountryNamesByCode' or 'CountryName'. The description only names the method without context, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions it's a SOAP method, which hints at a web service call, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple list operation) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of country names with codes), how results are formatted, or any error handling, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate here, as there are no parameters to explain. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool is a 'SOAP method: ListOfCountryNamesByCode', which implies it lists country names by code, but it's vague about the exact operation (e.g., whether it returns all countries or a filtered subset). It distinguishes from siblings like 'CountryName' or 'CountryISOCode' by focusing on listing names by code, but lacks specificity on the verb and resource scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'ListOfCountryNamesByName' and 'ListOfCountryNamesGroupedByContinent', the description does not indicate when this tool is preferred, such as for code-based lookups or alphabetical ordering, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it's a SOAP method, which hints at a web service call, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the response format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'SOAP method: ListOfLanguagesByName'. It's front-loaded with the key information (SOAP method and name), with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence serves a purpose in identifying the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of language names or details), which is critical for a listing tool. With no annotations and missing output details, it fails to provide enough context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't introduce any confusion. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids misalignment with the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it's a SOAP method called 'ListOfLanguagesByName', which implies it lists languages by name. However, it's vague about what exactly it returns (e.g., language names, codes, or full details) and doesn't clearly differentiate from siblings like 'ListOfLanguagesByCode' or 'LanguageName'. It specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'LanguagesByName', but lacks detail on scope or output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as comparing it to 'ListOfLanguagesByCode' or 'LanguageName' from the sibling list. The description is purely technical without practical usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp2ws MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AustinWise/mcp2ws/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AustinWise/mcp2ws)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp2ws MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AustinWise/mcp2ws/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AustinWise/mcp2ws)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AustinWise/mcp2ws'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server