Retrieve all states or provinces for a given two-letter country code to build regional lists or verify geographic data.
Get all states/provinces in a specific country.
Args:
country_code: Two-letter country code (e.g., "US", "CA", "AU")
Returns:
List of states/provinces in the country
| 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 burden. It discloses the return content (list of states/provinces) and read-only semantics implied by 'Get all', but says nothing about behavior for invalid or unknown country codes, case sensitivity, pagination, or result ordering.
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?
Short and front-loaded, with the one-line purpose leading before the Args/Returns blocks. The Args/Renders sections are slightly mechanical but each line carries useful information with no redundancy.
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 tool with an output schema already declared, the description covers purpose, the one parameter's format, and roughly what comes back. Missing only edge-case behavior for invalid codes, which is a minor gap at this complexity.
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, and it does: it defines country_code as a two-letter code and supplies concrete examples ("US", "CA", "AU"). It stops short of naming the standard (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2) or stating case handling, so not a 5.
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+resource: retrieving all states/provinces within a given country. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_cities_in_country and search_states by its resource scope (all states in one country). It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by the resource: call it when you need the full state/province list for a country. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer search_states (filtered lookup) or get_all_regions, nor any stated prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.