mcp-resilland

list_nurseries

List forestry nurseries across the RESILAND region, filtering by country or category to identify suitable sources for restoration projects.

Instructions

List forestry nurseries across the RESILAND region.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_nurseries"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`country`	No	ISO-3166 alpha-3
`category`	No	RESILAND-9 \| newly-established-18 \| forestry-agency \| existing

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List', which inherently suggests a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, potential large response sizes, or any side effects. This adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, brief sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no extraneous or repetitive content. It is optimally concise and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with two optional, well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention that filtering is possible, but the schema already conveys that. Given the low complexity and available structured information, the description is adequately complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions (country: ISO-3166 alpha-3; category: list of allowed values). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List forestry nurseries across the RESILAND region' clearly states a specific verb ('List'), the resource ('forestry nurseries'), and the geographic scope ('RESILAND region'). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like get_nursery, which presumably retrieves a single nursery, and other list tools like list_parcels.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use when a list of nurseries is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling tool names hint at distinctions, but the description itself offers no direct guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server