search_municipalitiesSearch Argentina’s municipalities by name or province to identify local governments and filter results by location.
Search municipalities (local governments) by name and/or province.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | Maximum results to return (1–50) | |
| nombre | No | Municipality name, e.g. "Rosario" | |
| provincia | No | Province name or id to filter by, e.g. "Córdoba", "caba" or "14" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond the search fields themselves — no mention of result limits, pagination, or what happens when filters are omitted.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the core action and its filter dimensions come first.
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, fully annotated, zero-required-parameter search with no output schema, the definition is largely sufficient. The one meaningful gap is routing guidance against its three sibling search tools, which the description doesn't address.
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%, so each parameter (max, nombre, provincia) is already documented with examples and bounds. The description only echoes the name and province filters and omits the max limit, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Search municipalities') and clarifies scope with '(local governments)'. However, it offers no differentiation from the closely related search_provinces, search_departments, and search_localities siblings.
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 implies a name/province lookup but never states when to use this tool versus the sibling search tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the routing decision from names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.