Retrieve the full tree of regions and cities as id — name lines to find area IDs for search filters. Use raw:true for nested JSON.
Get the full tree of regions and cities as id — name lines (pass raw:true for nested JSON). Use to find area IDs for search filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | Return the full raw hh.ru JSON instead of the compact id — name listing. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the default output format (compact id — name lines) and the effect of raw:true (nested JSON). However, it does not mention potential size, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not thorough.
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?
Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence describes the tool's function and output format, the second states the use case. All information is essential and front-loaded.
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 tool with a single optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it explains the output format and purpose. It does not mention any caveats like large response size or pagination, but this is not critical for a simple list retrieval. The description covers everything needed to call the tool correctly.
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?
The schema documents the raw parameter fully ('Return the full raw hh.ru JSON instead of the compact id — name listing'). The description's mention ('pass raw:true for nested JSON') adds no new information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but adds no extra semantics.
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 verb 'Get' with a specific resource ('full tree of regions and cities') and explains the output format ('id — name lines'). It also gives the intended use case ('find area IDs for search filters'), which differentiates it from siblings like get_areas_subtree and suggest_areas.
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 explicitly states when to use it ('Use to find area IDs for search filters'). However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly say when not to use this tool, such as when a subtree is needed (get_areas_subtree). The guidance is clear but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.