generate_statesGet the list of Nigerian states to generate realistic fake location data for testing applications with Nigerian addresses.
Returns the available Nigerian states.
| 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 readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns a predefined list of Nigerian states, but it does not say whether the result is exhaustive, ordered, or stable across calls. Since the tool has no parameters and a simple read-only behavior, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential behavior with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 parameterless, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it says what is returned and the domain. It loses one point for not clarifying what 'available' means (e.g., all 36 states plus FCT) or whether the ordering/count is guaranteed, though these are minor given the output schema and lack of parameters.
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 accepts zero parameters, so the schema's empty properties object covers 100% of the parameter surface. The description need not add parameter details, and the baseline for a zero-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?
States a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('available Nigerian states'), making it easily distinguishable from siblings like generate_lgas or generate_person. Even though the title already conveys the topic, the description clarifies that the tool returns the full available set rather than generating a single random value.
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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of sibling generators such as generate_lgas, generate_address, or generate_person. The context is clear, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.