Retrieve all locations for the ministry or organization to manage facilities, events, and maintenance.
Get all locations for the ministry/organization.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get-locations"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Get all locations,' implying a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it fails to disclose potential limitations (e.g., pagination, rate limits, or whether the result is a list or a single object). The agent lacks understanding of expected behavior beyond a simple retrieval.
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?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single seven-word sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficient, meeting the criteria for succinctness.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format (e.g., list of location objects, fields included) or any context about the response. An agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's output, which is a gap in completeness.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since none exist. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the tool requires no input, and the description correctly implies no arguments are needed.
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 clearly states it retrieves all locations for the ministry/organization, indicating the specific resource and scope. It is distinguishable from sibling tools which focus on different entities (e.g., equipment, users). However, the term 'locations' could be ambiguous without context, and the description could be more explicit about what constitutes a location.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or cases where another tool might be more appropriate. The description solely states what the tool does, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.