List all supported countries and the teacher verification documents each can generate, including employment letters, ID cards, teaching licenses, and payslips.
List all available countries, their display names, and the document types each can generate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states the returned data (countries, display names, document types) and 'List' implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state side effects or limitations.
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?
One sentence with no filler; the core action and output are front-loaded and every clause adds information. It is appropriately minimal and well structured.
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?
The tool is simple, has no parameters, and has an output schema, so the description provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke it. It could mention how this list relates to generate_documents (e.g., as a prerequisite), but that is not essential to making the call.
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 zero parameters, so no parameter guidance is needed; the description and empty schema align perfectly. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all available countries') and specifies exactly what the output includes (display names and document types). This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from siblings like list_schools (different resource) and generate_documents (different action).
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?
There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus list_schools or generate_documents. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but the description does not name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.