Check electrical plug types, voltage, frequency, and adapter requirements for a country using its ISO 2-letter code to plan travel power needs.
Electrical plug types, voltage, frequency and whether an adapter is needed. Curated snapshot.
Args: country_iso2: ISO 2-letter code (e.g., "US", "JP", "AU")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country_iso2 | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Curated snapshot' is a useful hint that the data may be static/not real-time, but there is no disclosure of coverage scope (which countries), staleness, or fallback behavior when a country is unknown.
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?
The purpose is front-loaded in one sentence before the Args block. Slight redundancy from restating the parameter format, but no wasted prose.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys the return fields (plug types, voltage, frequency, adapter need) and the input format. It stops short of stating data coverage or staleness, which matters for a 'snapshot' lookup.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by defining the single parameter as an ISO 2-letter country code and giving three concrete examples ('US', 'JP', 'AU'). That is meaningfully more than the bare 'Country Iso2' schema title.
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 the specific resource and its returned fields (plug types, voltage, frequency, adapter need), so an agent can distinguish it from advisory, weather, or currency siblings. The verb is implied rather than stated ('get outlet info'), but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative or related tool (e.g., alongside a packing-list or destination-info call). Usage is only inferable from the topic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.