Malja MCP

Official

by marsaplatform

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

Humanitarian funding

humanitarian_funding

Read-only

Compare annual humanitarian appeal requirements with funding received for a country and see coverage percentages using OCHA FTS via HDX data.

Instructions

Humanitarian appeal requirements vs funding received per year for a country, with coverage percentage (OCHA FTS via HDX).

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": "<country>"
    },
    "name": "humanitarian_funding"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`locale`	No	Language of the human-readable text output: "en" (default) or "ar" (Modern Standard Arabic, right-to-left). Structured JSON fields, ISO3 codes and dataset ids stay in English either way.
`country`	Yes	Country name or ISO3 code, e.g. "Egypt", "EGY", "syria"
`year_to`	No	Last year of the range (default: latest available)
`year_from`	No	First year of the range (default: 10 years back)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes
`country`	Yes
`records`	Yes
`country_code`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.0Oct 29, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv0.7.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful provenance (OCHA FTS via HDX) and confirms the returned granularity, but says nothing about coverage gaps (countries without an appeal), latency, or upstream data caveats.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the metric, the unit, the scope and the source with no filler. Nothing in it is redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the source attribution plus coverage percentage give the agent enough to call it confidently. The only real gap is behavioral edge cases, such as how a country-year with no appeal is represented.

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 country, year_from, year_to and locale are all documented in the schema itself, including defaults and the ISO3/name flexibility. The description only echoes the country and per-year scoping and adds no new semantics beyond that, which is the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema.

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?

The description names a precise metric pair (appeal requirements vs funding received), the unit of aggregation (per year), and the geography (a country), plus the coverage percentage. It is far more specific than a tautology and clearly distinct from siblings like country_profile or food_security, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for funding-gap questions, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no pointer to an alternative sibling when the user wants, e.g., general country context.

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