Fetch itemized cost-of-living prices and city cost indices for a given country from Numbeo to compare expenses and plan budgets.
Get a Numbeo country's cost-of-living prices. Returns aggregate itemized cost-of-living prices for a country, plus the headline cost-of-living indices for every city Numbeo tracks there.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | Yes | Country name as Numbeo spells it |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return content (itemized country-level prices plus headline indices for every tracked city), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about currency units, data freshness, or coverage limits.
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 with the purpose front-loaded and the return composition immediately after. No filler, though the return detail could be compressed slightly; structure is sound for a one-parameter data tool.
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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is fetched, the scope (country-level), and the shape of the payload. Missing only minor context such as currency of the prices, which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'country' parameter is already documented with the caveat 'Country name as Numbeo spells it.' The description adds no further meaning about the parameter (e.g., accepted formats or where to look up valid spelling), so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource: 'Get a Numbeo country's cost-of-living prices,' and the second sentence names the returned data (aggregate itemized prices plus headline indices per city). The country scope implicitly separates it from the sibling numbeo_cost_of_living_city, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the country scope; there is no statement of when to pick this over numbeo_cost_of_living_city, numbeo_indices_country, or the datasets_numbeo_countries_* siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent can infer intent from the name but gets no explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.