Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Insurance Wiki MCP Server

Insurance Wiki MCP Server

by sluyasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_branch_overview

Retrieve the hand-authored overview page for an insurance branch by slug or label for a specified country. Get branch-level summaries directly from the insurance knowledge graph.

Instructions

Return the hand-authored overview page for a branch (by slug or label).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "country": "<country>",
      "branch": "<branch>"
    },
    "name": "get_branch_overview"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
branchYes
countryYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries some burden. It discloses that the page is 'hand-authored' and that lookup is by slug or label, adding useful context. However, it doesn't mention read-only nature, error cases, or output format, but the verb 'Return' implies a safe read operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words; every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is an output schema, return values are covered, but the lack of usage guidelines and parameter semantics makes the description incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation. It doesn't clarify how this differs from get_page or what the country parameter is for.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'by slug or label' without explicitly mapping parameters. It doesn't explain that 'branch' is the slug/label or the role of 'country'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb (Return) and resource (hand-authored overview page for a branch), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_branches or get_page. The qualifier 'by slug or label' adds scoping, though it doesn't mention the country parameter.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_page or list_branches, nor mention any exclusions. The context implies it's for branch overviews, but no direct when-to-use advice is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools