Find countries by full or partial name in a SQLite geography database, returning every matching result for quick lookup and exploration.
Search for countries by name.
Args:
name: Country name to search for (partial matches allowed)
Returns:
List of countries matching the search
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful behavioral trait — partial matches are allowed — but says nothing about result limits, ordering, pagination, or what an empty name value does. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage this is only partial disclosure.
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 core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Returns' section is largely wasted since an output schema already exists, but the overall size is modest and not padded.
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?
The presence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values. What's missing for a tool in a dense sibling cluster is disambiguation from get_countries/get_country and the behavior of the default empty string, so the definition is adequate but incomplete.
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; it does explain the sole parameter ('Country name to search for') and its matching semantics (partial matches allowed). It does not explain the empty-string default, which likely means 'return everything' and is a meaningful behavioral difference the agent can't infer from the schema alone.
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 ('Search for countries by name'), which is clear enough to act on. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar siblings get_countries and get_country, leaving the agent to infer the difference between searching, listing, and fetching one.
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 on when to use this instead of get_countries, get_country, or get_countries_by_region. The description gives no context about intended use cases or exclusions, so routing among the sibling tools is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.