Fetch a city-state's traits, personality, current yields, unit gift estimate, unique unit, and exported resources via its minor ID. Use it to assess alliances or tribute in Civilization V.
Met city-state's trait/bonus and personality tooltips, current food/culture/faith/happiness/ science benefits, unit gift estimate, unique military unit and exported resources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| minor_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only lists returned content. The phrase 'Met city-state's' faintly implies the target must already be met, but it never states that this is a read-only lookup, what happens if minor_id is unknown/unmet, or whether it has side effects.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is a dense comma-separated enumeration of return fields rather than a structured statement of purpose. Adequate but not well organized.
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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back, partially covering the return-value role. However, for an unannotated lookup it omits call preconditions and error behavior, leaving the definition only partially complete.
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% for the single parameter minor_id, and the description never explains that minor_id is the city-state identifier or what values it accepts. 'Met city-state's' is the only indirect clue, which does not compensate for the fully undocumented parameter.
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 sentence enumerates the data the tool surfaces (trait/bonus tooltips, yields, unit gift estimate, unique unit, exported resources), which conveys the resource, but the verb is implicit and there is no differentiation from siblings such as city_state_gifts, city_state_actions, or relationship. An agent can infer it is an info/lookup tool but cannot cleanly separate it from adjacent city-state tools.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for city-state gifts, actions, or relationship data. With many overlapping city-state tools in the list, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.