itu_zones_source_infoRetrieve the amateur ITU zone list’s owner, edition, terms, and source file URLs with SHA-256 hashes to verify provenance and integrity.
Who owns this list, which edition is served, its terms, and the owner's files' URLs and SHA-256s.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds the returned provenance fields but no further behavioral context such as caching, freshness, or how the source files are validated.
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?
It is a single efficient sentence that front-loads ownership and then enumerates edition, terms, URLs, and hashes. There is no filler.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not explain return structure, and it summarizes the key contents well for a zero-parameter metadata tool. The only notable gap is routing versus the similar-sounding get_version_info sibling.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The empty schema is clear, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter behavior.
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?
The description clearly states the metadata returned: ownership, served edition, terms, file URLs, and SHA-256 hashes. It distinguishes this from lookup/search-style siblings by focusing on provenance and source details, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_version_info.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_version_info or the lookup/search tools. An agent can infer it is for source/provenance metadata, but that inference is not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.