Geodb Cities MCP Server

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 the output format but fails to describe other key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, error handling, or timezone validation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's function and output format. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient for quick comprehension by an AI agent.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It specifies the output format but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or error responses. For a tool that likely interacts with timezone data, more context on limitations or usage scenarios would enhance completeness, especially with sibling tools present.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'zoneid' fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of timezone IDs or format constraints. Since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Get the time-zone current time in ISO-6801 format: HHmmss.SSSZ'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('time-zone current time'), and output format. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'place_time' or 'place_date_time', which might offer similar functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 sibling tools such as 'place_time' and 'place_date_time' available, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this tool over others. This lack of comparative guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.

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