Retrieve the list of country codes accepted by Balenciaga's store locator, sourced from the official public form for store availability checks.
List Balenciaga store-locator countries. Returns every country code accepted by balenciaga-stores, discovered from Balenciaga's own public store-locator form.
| 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose provenance ('discovered from Balenciaga's own public store-locator form') and scope ('every country code'), which is useful. However, it does not mention output format, whether the list is static or live, or any freshness/rate considerations, leaving some behavioral detail unstated.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and resource, the second defines the output and its source. The key scoping detail ('every country code accepted by balenciaga-stores') is front-loaded and directly actionable.
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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned, the accepted domain, and the provenance. It stops short of specifying the exact return shape (e.g., array of ISO codes), but that gap is minor given the simplicity.
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 tool has zero parameters and the empty schema fully documents this, so the baseline is 4. The description adds the relevant semantic context that the output values are country codes valid for balenciaga-stores, which is all an agent needs.
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 verb and resource: 'List Balenciaga store-locator countries' and specifies the exact output, 'every country code accepted by balenciaga-stores.' It clearly distinguishes this as an enumeration/metadata tool from the sibling balenciaga_stores tool by framing its result as the accepted input values for that tool.
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 gives clear context by saying the output is 'accepted by balenciaga-stores,' which signals an agent should call this when it needs valid country codes for that tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a zero-parameter list tool the implied usage is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.