Find Swiss public institutions—Confederation, cantons, municipalities—that publish tenders. Filter by name and language to identify issuing authorities.
List Swiss public institutions (Confederation, cantons, municipalities) that publish tenders
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language for names | en |
| search | No | Filter by name (min 3 characters) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that only institutions publishing tenders are included, but it does not disclose response format, default language behavior, ordering, or whether search filters against localized names.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys scope, country, institution levels, and the tender-publishing filter without filler or redundancy.
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 optional-parameter list tool, the description and fully documented schema are largely sufficient. The main gap is the absence of any hint about the response shape, especially since there is no output schema and no annotations.
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%; lang and search are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 ('List') and a specific resource ('Swiss public institutions — Confederation, cantons, municipalities — that publish tenders'). The parenthetical scope clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cantons.
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 implies its use case: when an agent needs the set of institutions publishing tenders. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as search_tenders or list_cantons, nor does it mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.