Lists the states covered by ListRiver and returns business counts for recent formations, the last 12 months, and all active businesses.
List the states ListRiver covers, with how many businesses each has: formed this month or last ("recent"), in the last 12 months ("year"), and every active business ("all"). Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing that the call is "Free" (no credit consumption) and by defining the semantic windows behind each count category. It does not discuss freshness of the counts or caching, which would have been a further bonus.
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 sentence front-loads the purpose and then defines the three count categories without filler. The nested parenthetical quoting is dense and slightly harder to scan than a short bulleted breakdown would be, but nothing is redundant.
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?
This is a parameterless, read-only listing tool with an output schema that documents the return shape. The description supplies the one thing the schema and annotations cannot: what each count window means and that the call is free. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning to add. The description does usefully map the labels "recent", "year", and "all" to concrete time windows, which likely correspond to fields in the output rather than inputs.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("List the states ListRiver covers") and immediately clarifies the payload: business counts per state. The three metric windows ("recent", "year", "all") are spelled out precisely. It stops short of naming siblings like count_businesses or search_businesses, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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 implied: this is the coverage/overview call for enumerating supported states and their business volumes. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use statement and no pointer to the sibling tools for filtered or aggregate queries. "Free" gives a useful cost signal but is not routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.