Retrieve all subregions within a specific region by providing the parent region ID.
Get all subregions within a specific region.
Args:
region_id: The ID of the parent region
Returns:
List of subregions in the region
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region_id | 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 disclosure burden, and it does little beyond stating that a list is returned. It omits pagination behavior, error handling for invalid region IDs, and whether the relationship is direct-only or recursive.
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 statement is front-loaded and short, and the Args/Returns block is compact. The boilerplate formatting adds little, but there is no wasted prose.
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 spelled out. But with no annotations and no usage guidance, an agent lacks context about the geographic hierarchy involved and how this tool relates to the many sibling lookup tools.
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 clarifies that region_id is 'the ID of the parent region', adding hierarchy semantics the bare schema title 'Region Id' does not convey.
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 all subregions within a specific region'), which is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation. However, it offers no differentiation from related siblings such as get_all_regions or get_countries_by_region, and the term 'subregions' is left undefined in this domain.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_all_regions, get_countries_by_region, or get_states_in_country. Usage is only implied by the name, with no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.