Geodb Cities MCP Server

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. While it mentions filtering capabilities, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what format the results come in, whether there are rate limits or authentication requirements, or what happens when no divisions are found. The description is too minimal for a tool with 17 parameters and no 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?

The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently states the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes the filtering aspect. While perhaps too brief given the tool's complexity, every word serves a purpose with no wasted 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 17 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'divisions' are in this context, what format results come in, whether there are pagination considerations (despite limit/offset parameters), or any error conditions. The description leaves too many questions unanswered for proper agent usage.

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 description mentions 'filtering by optional criteria' which aligns with the many filter parameters in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 17 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Get divisions near the given administrative division, filtering by optional criteria.' This clearly indicates a retrieval operation with filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'admin_divisions_near_location' (which appears to search near coordinates rather than a division ID), leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'admin_divisions_near_location' and 'admin_division_details' available, there's no indication of when this specific tool (searching near a division) is preferred over searching near coordinates or getting division details directly. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.