Retrieve all Census Geocoder benchmarks, which identify MAF/TIGER locator database versions like Public_AR_Current. Use it to select a locator version for geocoding requests.
List all available benchmarks for the Census Geocoder. A benchmark references a version of the MAF/TIGER locator database (e.g. Public_AR_Current, Public_AR_Census2020).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says it lists all available benchmarks; it does not state that this is a safe read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination, rate limits, or any auth requirements. The domain explanation is helpful but not behavioral disclosure.
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?
Two efficient sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by a useful definition. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate domain context. It could be more complete by hinting at the return shape (e.g., a list of benchmark IDs) or any usage constraints, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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?
Zero parameters, so per calibration the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to document, and the description does not need to compensate for any gap.
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 ('List') and resource ('benchmarks for the Census Geocoder'), and defines what a benchmark is with concrete examples. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling list_vintages, but the distinct resource makes confusion unlikely.
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 alternatives named, no prerequisites or sequencing relative to the geocoding tools. The definition of a benchmark is domain context, not invocation guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.