Retrieve the complete catalog of Colombian cities for accurate location data in Siigo accounting software integration.
Get cities catalog
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": "siigo_get_cities"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get cities catalog' implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify any behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or includes metadata. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 'Get cities catalog' is extremely concise with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, though it could benefit from more detail. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description 'Get cities catalog' is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of cities, their IDs, or other attributes), any usage constraints, or how it fits into broader workflows. For a tool in a complex server with many siblings, this minimal description leaves critical context gaps.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description is not required to compensate for any parameter gaps.
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 'Get cities catalog' clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'cities catalog', making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'cities catalog' entails (e.g., a list of cities with details) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'siigo_get_customers' or 'siigo_get_products', which follow a similar 'Get [resource]' pattern. This makes it vague in differentiation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it's for reference data, filtering options, or integration with other tools. With many sibling tools available, this lack of usage guidelines leaves the agent without clear direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.