Retrieve country codes from the accounting system with options to filter, order, and paginate results for targeted data selection.
List country codes. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| take | No | ||
| order | No | GraphQL order clause | |
| where | No | GraphQL where filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state 'Read-only,' which is a valuable and accurate safety signal for an AI agent. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, output shape, or any limitations beyond what the schema already exposes.
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 only five words, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, and the 'Read-only' qualifier adds useful behavioral information without bloat.
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?
This is a simple list tool, but there is no output schema and the description gives no detail about return values, pagination expectations, or filter semantics. The schema covers skip/take defaults, but an agent still receives minimal context for a tool that supports GraphQL-style filtering.
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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not mention how skip, take, order, or where affect the listing, so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters in the schema.
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 a distinct resource ('country codes'), making it immediately clear what the tool does. It is unique among the siblings, and the 'Read-only' qualifier further clarifies that this is a lookup operation.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are many sibling list tools. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or cases where another tool like m3_graphql might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.