banca-dati-merito-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Elenca valori

elenca_valori

Read-only

Lists all allowed subject-matter or role values in the exact form required as search criteria for Banca Dati di Merito searches.

Instructions

Elenca tutti i valori ammessi di materia o ruolo, nella forma esatta da usare come criterio di ricerca.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "campo": "<campo>"
    },
    "name": "elenca_valori"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`area`	No	Area della Banca Dati. Le ricerche oggi restituiscono risultati solo in CIVILE; le statistiche contano anche PENALE.	CIVILE
`campo`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Oct 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag this as a read-only, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the returned values are exhaustive ("tutti") and authoritative in form, but says nothing about whether results vary by area or how they should be consumed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose and the output contract are packed into one clause without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, yet the description does not state the return shape beyond implying a list of strings, nor whether the enumeration is scoped by 'area'. For a two-parameter lookup tool this is adequate but leaves real gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%: the 'area' parameter is well documented in the schema, while 'campo' relies on its enum. The description maps onto 'campo' by naming materia and ruolo, but adds nothing about 'area' or the fact that current searches only return CIVILE results.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ("elenca") and resource ("tutti i valori ammessi di materia o ruolo"), so the agent knows this is an enumeration of allowed lookup values rather than a search. It does not differentiate itself from the near-sibling cerca_valori, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The clause "nella forma esatta da usare come criterio di ricerca" implies the intended downstream use (feeding search criteria), which is useful implied guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over cerca_valori or risolvi_criteri, nor whether the list depends on the area parameter.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.