Get streets for a city by providing city ID and organization ID, enabling address selection and validation.
Улицы города (одиночная organization_id). Где взять ID: cityId → addresses__get_cities; organizationId → organizations__get_organizations. Троттлинг MCP-сервера (не лимит iikoCloud): не чаще 1 запрос(ов) за 60 с — кэшируйте результат в диалоге.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only/non-destructive. The description adds an explicit rate-limit notice (1/60s) and advises caching the result, which are non-obvious behavioral traits beyond the structured annotations. It doesn't describe return format, but that's less critical for a lookup.
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 short sentences, each with a distinct job: state scope, give ID sources, and warn about throttling. No filler.
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 lookup tool, the description covers scope, parameter provenance, and an important rate limit. Still, without an output schema, it never states the return shape (e.g., list of street names/IDs), and doesn't mention includeDeleted semantics, leaving the agent with minor uncertainty.
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 description adds source instructions for the two required IDs, which is genuinely useful given the schema has no top-level descriptions. However, it doesn't clarify the nested request wrapper or the includeDeleted parameter, so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
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?
Description states the resource ('streets of city') and a key constraint ('single organization_id'), which is more specific than the name alone. It does not use an explicit verb, and it doesn't directly differentiate from addresses__get_streets_by_id, but the ID-sourcing hints and the 'single organization_id' qualifier give enough signal.
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?
It explains where to obtain cityId and organizationId, and the single-organization qualifier hints at a use case. However, it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives like addresses__get_streets_by_id or tells the agent when to prefer this tool, so routing is left mostly to the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.