search_provincesFind Argentina’s 24 provinces by name or list all, returning official names, INDEC IDs, and centroids for geographic data normalization.
Search Argentina's 24 provinces (including CABA) by name. Omit nombre to list them all. Returns official name, INDEC id and centroid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | Maximum results to return (1–50) | |
| nombre | No | Province name, accents optional, e.g. "cordoba" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return fields (official name, INDEC id, centroid) and the list-vs-filter behavior. Pagination/ordering remains undisclosed, which keeps it below a 5.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with scope, then the filter behavior, then the return payload. No filler whatsoever.
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 only two optional parameters, full annotation coverage, and the return fields spelled out in the description (no output schema exists), an agent has everything needed to call it correctly. Minor omission: no statement of ordering or how max interacts with the 24-item result set.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of omitting nombre (returns the full list) and indicating that name matching is accent-tolerant is reinforced in the schema example.
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 with precise scope: "Search Argentina's 24 provinces (including CABA) by name." The resource granularity (provinces vs. departments/municipalities/localities in the sibling set) makes it distinguishable without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
"Omit nombre to list them all" gives clear operational guidance for the two modes of use. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_departments or search_localities, so it falls short of full alternatives coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.