Retrieve all municipal services and categories from Las Palmas de Gran Canaria to find the correct service ID before querying or creating city reports.
Servicios de LPGC Avisa (id + título).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, authentication, pagination, or ordering. The read-only nature is only weakly implied by the naming convention shared with sibling tools.
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?
It is a single compact fragment with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than truly concise, and it does not front-load an action verb.
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?
The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), so the description must describe the return value; it hints at id + title but omits that a list of services is returned and gives no behavioral context at all.
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 for this dimension is 4; there is no parameter semantics to clarify or omit.
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 fragment 'Servicios de LPGC Avisa (id + título)' merely restates the tool name's resource and adds the returned fields, with no verb to confirm it enumerates rather than creates or modifies services. It does not distinguish it from siblings like list_categories, which follow the same naming pattern.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as list_categories, my_avisos, or get_identity. Usage can only be inferred from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.