rybbit_get_excluded_countriesRetrieve the list of country codes excluded from tracking on a site. Use it for compliance auditing, such as GDPR checks.
Get the list of country codes excluded from tracking for a site. Useful for compliance auditing (GDPR, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteId | Yes | Site ID (numeric ID or domain identifier) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add semantic context. It adds that the data relates to tracking exclusions and compliance, but it does not detail output format, ISO standard, pagination, or empty-response behavior. This is acceptable but not exceptional.
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 action is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: one states what the tool returns, the other explains why it matters.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It states the return content in plain terms ('list of country codes') and a concrete purpose. It leaves out minor details like the exact country code format, but nothing that would likely prevent correct invocation.
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 siteId already described as 'Site ID (numeric ID or domain identifier).' The tool description does not add parameter-level detail beyond referring to 'for a site,' so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the list of country codes excluded from tracking for a site.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rybbit_get_excluded_ips and other site-level read tools by naming the exact data returned.
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 gives a clear use case: 'Useful for compliance auditing (GDPR, etc.).' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is direct enough for an agent to understand when this read operation applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.