Fetch complete country information using a two-letter ISO country code, such as US, GB, or FR, from the SQLite Geography Server.
Get detailed information about a specific country.
Args:
country_code: Two-letter ISO country code (e.g., "US", "GB", "FR")
Returns:
Complete country information
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country_code | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read of a single entity but never states that it is read-only, what happens on an unknown/invalid code, or whether the lookup is case-sensitive or cached.
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?
Front-loaded single-sentence purpose followed by compact Args/Returns blocks; nothing is padded. The closing "Returns: Complete country information" is vague filler, but it is cheap.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and the one parameter is covered. What is missing is disambiguation from the numerous sibling lookup tools, which is the main thing an agent needs to choose correctly.
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 property has no documented meaning. The description partially compensates by defining country_code as a two-letter ISO code with examples ("US", "GB", "FR"), which is genuinely useful, but it omits validation behavior or accepted edge cases.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Get detailed information about a specific country") and the word "detailed" hints at a depth distinction versus summary/list siblings. However, it never names or contrasts with the many siblings (get_countries, search_countries, get_countries_summary), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative named. With 14 sibling tools covering countries, cities, regions and currencies, the absence of any routing hint (e.g., "use search_countries to find a code first") is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.