List the countries offered by Balenciaga's store locator with their code, name, and count to enable store searches by country.
List Balenciaga store-locator countries. Lists the countries Balenciaga's store locator offers, each with a country code and name, plus a count. Each code is accepted by balenciaga-stores. The response also reports the storefront country and language.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully describe the response shape (per-country code, name, count, plus the storefront country and language). It omits auth/rate-limit context, but for a zero-parameter read-only enumerator that is a minor gap.
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?
Front-loaded and short, but the second sentence partially restates the first ("List Balenciaga store-locator countries" / "Lists the countries Balenciaga's store locator offers"), a small redundancy that keeps it from being maximally tight.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description's summary of returned fields and the cross-reference to `balenciaga-stores` are genuinely necessary. It is nearly complete for a trivial enumerator, lacking only secondary operational details like caching or auth.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description documents return fields rather than inputs, and there are no inputs to clarify.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (Balenciaga store-locator countries), then names the exact fields returned (code, name, count). An agent can distinguish this from balenciaga_stores or balenciaga_categories without opening any schema.
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?
Explicitly states that each code is accepted by `balenciaga-stores`, which tells the agent to call this first to obtain valid country codes for the sibling tool. There is no explicit when-not or exclusion, but the routing context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.