listAtlasCountiesLists synchronized counties with their data groups and publication CIDs to identify available atlas datasets and locate their content identifiers.
List the synchronized counties, their data groups, and publication CIDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.13.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It conveys this is a read/retrieval operation and specifies the returned entities, but it does not disclose whether the list reflects a synced snapshot, requires authorization, or has pagination or ordering behavior.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: the operation, the resource, and the three output components.
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 no-parameter list operation with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it names all output components and makes the tool's purpose clear. It would only benefit from clarifying the exact return shape or the meaning of 'synchronized,' but the low complexity keeps the gap small.
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?
There are no parameters, so the input schema has nothing to document; the baseline is 4. The description's mention of specific output components adds useful context even though no parameter semantics are needed.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource ('synchronized counties') and the return contents ('data groups, publication CIDs'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listAtlasProperties, which target properties rather than counties.
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?
Usage is implied: call this tool when you need a county-level listing with its data groups and publication CIDs. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use it or mention alternative sibling tools, but the no-parameter, list-only nature reduces the risk of mis-selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.