Rank ISPs in a country by censorship risk, showing blocking aggressiveness, category breadth, and methods. Compare ISP censorship levels.
Get ranked ISP censorship index for a country. Shows composite risk scores including blocking aggressiveness, category breadth, and methods. Answers "Which ISPs in Iran censor most?" and "How does this ISP compare?"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country_code | Yes | 2-letter country code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions composite risk scores and components but lacks details on data freshness, ordering, pagination, or limits. Read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
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 clear, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. First sentence defines action and output; second sentence provides example questions that tool answers.
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?
No output schema, but description explains output includes ranked ISPs with composite risk scores and components. Acceptable for a simple tool, but could detail return format more precisely.
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?
Only one parameter (country_code) with schema description '2-letter country code'. Description does not add extra context beyond schema, but schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states it gets a ranked ISP censorship index for a country, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_censorship_index (country-level) and get_isp_status (single ISP), and answers specific questions.
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?
Implicitly suggests use for ISP-level risk index but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like get_censorship_index or get_isp_status. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.