Fetch itemized cost-of-living prices for a specified city slug, covering restaurants, markets, transport, utilities, and rent grouped by category.
Get a Numbeo city's cost-of-living prices. Returns itemized cost-of-living prices for one city (restaurants, markets, transportation, utilities, rent, and more), grouped by category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Numbeo city slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the shape of the return (itemized prices grouped by category, spanning restaurants, markets, transportation, utilities, rent), which is useful, but says nothing about data freshness, currency, or whether a missing slug errors.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource and followed by the return outline. No filler, though the second sentence slightly restates the first's subject.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back and the category grouping. It stops short of explaining how to obtain a valid slug, the only genuine gap.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'slug'. The description adds no format hints (e.g., that the slug comes from a Numbeo cities lookup), leaving the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a Numbeo city's cost-of-living prices), and the 'for one city' scoping implicitly separates it from the country/rankings siblings. It never names an alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 conveys the use case (fetch cost-of-living prices for a city), so usage is implied, but it offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer numbeo_cost_of_living_country or numbeo_indices_city instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.