codice_regione_stazioneGet the numeric Italian region code for a given station code, such as S01700 for Lombardy, to identify which region a railway station belongs to.
Restituisce il codice numerico di regione associato a una determinata stazione (es. 'S01700' -> 1 Lombardia).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| codice_stazione | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does convey that this is a pure read/lookup returning a mapped code, and the example demonstrates the mapping behavior. However, it says nothing about error behavior for unknown/invalid station codes, so behavioral disclosure is incomplete.
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 with a compact inline example. Nothing is wasted and the core mapping is immediately clear.
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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description covers input semantics and the return transformation well. Only the absence of error/edge-case behavior and sibling routing keeps it from being fully complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it identifies the parameter as a station code and the example 'S01700' conveys the expected string format. It stops short of documenting constraints or failure modes, but the format hint is the key missing piece the schema omits.
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 (Restituisce) and resource (codice numerico di regione) tied to a concrete input (stazione), and the 'S01700 -> 1 Lombardia' example makes the transformation unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from list-oriented siblings like elenco_stazioni_regione, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.
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 versus alternatives such as dettaglio_stazione or elenco_stazioni_regione. The usage is only implied by the parameter name; no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.