generate_lgasRetrieve available Nigerian Local Government Areas (LGAs) to use in fake data generation.
Returns the available Nigerian LGAs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "value": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "value"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden. The description adds that the tool returns the available LGAs rather than generating a random one, but it does not explain list shape, ordering, or relationship to states. With strong annotations, this is adequate but not rich.
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 short sentence wastes no words and front-loads the core message. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read-only lookup.
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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is complete: an agent knows the operation is a safe list lookup. Nothing else is needed to invoke it correctly.
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 the semantics are vacuous and the description need not elaborate. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.
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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('available Nigerian LGAs'), making the core function clear. It distinguishes the resource from sibling generators like generate_states and generate_address, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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 usage guidance is given: the description does not say when to choose this tool versus generate_states or generate_address, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name that this is the LGA-listing tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.