Search for countries by optional name; returns matching records, or all countries when no name is given.
Simple country search by name.
Args:
name: Country name to search for. This is optional. Default, return all countries from the database.
Returns:
List of matching countries
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral fact — omitting 'name' returns the entire country table — which is the kind of context an agent needs to avoid accidental full-table reads. It says nothing about result size, ordering, or pagination, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 purpose is front-loaded and the Args section is compact. The 'Returns: List of matching countries' section is redundant because an output schema already exists, and the pseudo-Python formatting is heavier than the one-parameter tool warrants. Not wasteful enough to be a problem, but not tight either.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the parameter behavior is covered. What is missing is disambiguation from the many country-related siblings and any note on matching behavior or result limits — enough gaps to keep this at a minimum-viable level rather than 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter, and it does: it names 'name', explains it is a search string, marks it optional, and defines the default behavior when omitted. That is a solid override of the schema gap, though it adds no matching semantics (exact vs partial match).
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 clear verb and resource ('country search by name') and is easy to understand on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'search_countries' or 'get_country', leaving the agent unsure which of the several country-lookup tools to pick. The word 'Simple' hints at a difference but never explains it.
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?
It states that 'name' is optional and that omitting it returns all countries, which is real usage information. But there is no guidance on when to choose this over the overlapping siblings 'search_countries', 'get_country', or 'get_countries_by_region'. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.