list_districtsRetrieve the districts or regions for a Swedish sports federation by federation code, such as SHF, to identify regional competition areas like HF Öst and HF Väst.
List the districts/regions of a federation, e.g. SHF → HF Öst, HF Väst.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| federation | Yes | Federation code, e.g. SHF |
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 burden. 'List' implies a safe read operation, and the example shows the shape of returned values, but it says nothing about ordering, empty results, error handling on invalid federation codes, or permissions.
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?
A single compact sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource and followed by a clarifying example. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it conveys the hierarchy and gives an example of return values. It falls slightly short on edge-case behavior (invalid code, empty district list) which matters when no output schema exists.
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 100% (the federation param already documents 'Federation code, e.g. SHF'), so the baseline is 3. The description's example reinforces the input format and additionally shows what district values look like, but adds no new constraints or format detail beyond the schema.
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 ('List the districts/regions of a federation') and even clarifies that districts and regions are the same concept. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_federations or list_competitions, though the parent-child relationship is implied by the example.
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 only implied: the example 'SHF → HF Öst' shows the tool is called with a federation code to obtain its districts. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_federations or list_competitions, and no guidance on what happens for an unknown code.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.