Retrieve a country's aggregate Numbeo index data and each tracked city's breakdown for quality of life, crime, health care, pollution, traffic, or property investment.
Get a Numbeo country's data for an index family. Returns one country's aggregate data for a Numbeo index family, plus every city Numbeo tracks there with its index breakdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes | Index family | |
| country | Yes | Country name as Numbeo spells it |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Input schema / properties / index / enumAdded value: +[
+ "quality-of-life",
+ "crime",
+ "health-care",
+ "pollution",
+ "traffic",
+ "property-investment"
+]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, and it does disclose the return shape: one country aggregate plus every tracked city with its index breakdown. That's genuinely useful since there's no output schema. However, it says nothing about data freshness, coverage limits, or permissions.
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, no filler, and the resource is front-loaded before the return detail. Slightly repetitive in restating 'Numbeo country / index family' twice.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape adequately. The main gap is the absence of any routing guidance among the many numbeo_* siblings.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the 'index' enum and 'country' both documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying a country/index pairing already evident from the parameters.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Get a Numbeo country's data for an index family', and the return sentence reinforces the country-level scope plus city breakdown. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like numbeo_indices_city or numbeo_indices_rankings, so it stays below a 5.
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 tool name and the word 'country' – the description never states when to reach for this over numbeo_indices_city, numbeo_indices_rankings, or numbeo_cost_of_living_country. No alternatives or exclusions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.