Statesman MCP Server

create_city

Create a new strategic city record tied to a sovereign country with name, themes, and urban logistics details for geopolitical catalogs.

Instructions

Create a new strategic city record associated with a sovereign country.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "country_id": "<country_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_city"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name of the city (e.g. 'Marseille', 'Rotterdam')
`themes`	No	Thematic urban tags (e.g. ['deepwater port', 'mediterranean gateway'])
`country_id`	Yes	Country ID
`description`	No	Description of urban role, economic base, and strategic logistics

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does not meet it. It says nothing about duplicate-name handling, whether country_id must reference an existing country, required permissions, or what the call returns (an ID? the full record?). For an unannotated mutation tool this is a real gap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrasing. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects thin content rather than disciplined editing.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation that depends on a foreign key, the description should explain prerequisites and result. It omits both, leaving the agent to guess at failure modes and return shape.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four fields with examples, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only that the country association is with a "sovereign country," a marginal clarification beyond the country_id field description.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a concrete verb ("Create") and resource ("city record") plus the linkage to a country, which separates it from get_city/list_cities/update_city. The word "strategic" is decorative but the domain distinction is still legible.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named — nothing tells the agent to prefer create_city over, say, creating a country or cluster record first. The implicit prerequisite (a country must already exist to supply country_id) is never stated.

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

Deploy Server