Philippine-Geocoding

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes based on geographic entity type and scope, with minimal overlap. However, some tools like get_region_cities_municipalities and get_region_cities/get_region_municipalities could cause confusion about when to use the combined vs. separate versions. The search_by_name and validate_code tools are clearly distinct from the hierarchical retrieval tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a perfectly consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' prefix for retrieval operations, and entity names are consistently pluralized for lists and singular for specific items. The two non-get tools (search_by_name, validate_code) maintain the same naming convention with clear action prefixes.
Tool Count2/5
With 41 tools, this is excessive for a geocoding server. Many tools could be consolidated into parameterized versions (e.g., a single get_entities tool with type and scope parameters). The server feels heavy and overwhelming despite covering a coherent domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage of Philippine geographic hierarchy with complete CRUD-like retrieval operations for all entity types (island groups, regions, provinces, districts, cities, municipalities, barangays). It includes both listing and specific retrieval, hierarchical navigation, search, and validation - no obvious gaps exist for the stated geocoding purpose.
Average 2.9/5 across 41 of 41 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but does not specify if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with a single sentence 'Get specific district by code', which efficiently conveys the core action. There is no wasted text, but it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing brevity.
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 the complexity (a read operation with one parameter), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like response format, error cases, or parameter details, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter 'code'. It adds minimal meaning by indicating the parameter is used 'by code', but does not explain the code format (e.g., string pattern, examples), valid values, or constraints. This is insufficient given the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get specific district by code' states the verb ('Get'), resource ('district'), and key parameter ('by code'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'district' refers to (e.g., administrative, geographic) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_districts' (plural) or 'get_region_districts', making it vague in context.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain if this is for retrieving a single district by code while 'get_districts' is for listing all, or when to prefer 'get_region_districts' for filtering by region. The description implies usage by mentioning 'by code' but offers no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get all municipalities') without any information about permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or response format. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, plus 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter details, or return values, leaving the agent with significant gaps in understanding how to use this tool effectively.
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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'within a specific district' which implies the 'districtCode' parameter, but doesn't explain what a district code is, its format, valid values, or where to obtain it. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('municipalities within a specific district'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_district_cities_municipalities' or 'get_municipalities', which could cause confusion about scope.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_district_cities_municipalities' or 'get_municipalities'. It mentions a 'specific district' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases with the many sibling tools available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get all cities') without any information on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There's no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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 the lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter details, or output expectations, making it insufficient for reliable tool invocation in a complex sibling environment.
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?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description doesn't add any semantic details about 'islandGroupCode' (e.g., format, examples, valid values, or relationship to other tools). It merely restates the parameter's role without compensating for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all cities within a specific island group', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cities' or 'get_island_group_municipalities', which might retrieve similar data with different scopes or filters.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that retrieve geographic data (e.g., 'get_cities', 'get_island_group_municipalities'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires authentication, rate limits, what format the hierarchy returns (e.g., tree structure, list), error handling for invalid codes, or whether it's a lightweight lookup versus expensive computation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does, though it could be slightly more informative about the code parameter.
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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format (critical for 'hierarchy'), error conditions, code format requirements, or how this differs from the 33 sibling tools. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.
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% (parameter 'code' has no description in schema). The description only mentions 'for a specific code' without explaining what constitutes a valid code (e.g., geographic code format, length, examples). This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation for the single required parameter.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('complete geographic hierarchy') with specific scope ('for a specific code') and clarifies what it shows ('parent entities'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on hierarchy rather than individual entities or lists, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. With 33 sibling tools including various get_* and search/validate tools, the agent receives no help in selecting this specific hierarchy tool over alternatives like get_region, get_province, or search_by_name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify if it's idempotent, what happens with invalid codes (e.g., errors vs. null returns), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted language, making it efficient for quick understanding.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling or response structure, nor does it help differentiate usage in a crowded sibling toolset, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty.
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?
The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'by code' without explaining what the code represents (e.g., format, examples, source). It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's existence of a 'code' parameter, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 'Get specific city by code' clearly states the verb ('Get'), resource ('city'), and key constraint ('by code'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cities' (plural) or 'get_municipality', which might retrieve similar geographic entities.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_cities', 'get_municipality', 'search_by_name'), there's no indication of when this specific retrieval by code is preferred over other lookup methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' data (implying read-only), but doesn't specify whether this is a filtered list, what format the output takes, whether there are pagination limits, or any error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately.
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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (list of city objects? just names?), doesn't address error cases, and provides minimal parameter guidance. Given the complexity of geographic hierarchy tools in this server, more context is needed.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. While it mentions 'specific district' which implies the 'districtCode' parameter, it provides no guidance on what format the code should take, whether it's a numeric code, string identifier, or what valid values might be. This leaves the single required parameter inadequately documented.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all cities within a specific district'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from broader tools like 'get_cities' by specifying the district scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'get_district_cities_municipalities'.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for retrieving geographic entities (e.g., 'get_cities', 'get_district_cities_municipalities', 'get_region_cities'), there's no indication of when this specific district-focused query is appropriate versus broader or more specific alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the code doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information.
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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'island group' is in this context, what the return format looks like, error conditions, or how this fits with the many sibling geographic tools. For a tool in this rich context, more information is needed.
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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by code' which adds some meaning to the 'code' parameter, but doesn't explain what format the code should be (e.g., string pattern, valid values), what it represents, or provide examples. This is insufficient given the complete lack of schema documentation.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('specific island group'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_island_groups' (plural) or other geographic lookup tools, which would require explicit differentiation for a perfect score.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for geographic lookups (e.g., 'get_island_groups', 'get_region', 'search_by_name'), the description offers no context about when this specific retrieval is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns all barangays at once (pagination?), what format the output takes, error conditions, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe invocation.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately concise for a simple retrieval operation.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like return format (list of barangays? structured data?), error handling, or how results are presented (e.g., sorted, limited). For a tool with no structured metadata, this minimal description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.
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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'specific island group' which relates to the 'islandGroupCode' parameter, but doesn't explain what an island group is, provide examples of valid codes, or describe the expected format (e.g., string patterns). This leaves the parameter meaning ambiguous despite the low schema coverage.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all barangays within a specific island group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_barangays' or 'get_barangay', which could retrieve barangays without island group filtering.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for retrieving barangays (e.g., 'get_barangays', 'get_barangay', 'get_province_barangays'), there's no indication of when this specific island-group-filtered version is appropriate or what distinguishes it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get all regions', implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it returns a list, pagination details, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 the complexity of geographic data retrieval, no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not address return values, error handling, or how results relate to sibling tools, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.
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?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any semantic information about 'islandGroupCode', such as format, examples, or valid values. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'regions within a specific island group', making the purpose explicit. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its many siblings (e.g., get_island_group, get_island_group_cities, get_regions), which all involve retrieving geographic data, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools for retrieving different geographic entities (e.g., cities, municipalities, provinces), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on naming alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('Get') without detailing aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, error handling for invalid codes, response format, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description is extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted language, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 the lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual elements such as return values, error conditions, or how it fits within the broader toolset (e.g., sibling relationships), leaving the agent with insufficient information for effective use.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions 'by code' but doesn't explain what the 'code' parameter represents (e.g., format, examples, or valid values). With one required parameter and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's structure.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('specific province'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_provinces' (plural) or 'get_region_provinces', which would require a more specific distinction to achieve a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_provinces' for listing all provinces, 'get_region_provinces' for filtering by region), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this specific tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Get all cities' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this returns a complete list or paginated results, what format the cities are returned in, whether there are rate limits, or what happens with invalid province codes. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the core functionality.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. For a tool with many similar siblings in the server, it should provide more context about what distinguishes it, what format the results take, and any constraints or requirements. The current description leaves too many questions unanswered.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'specific province' which relates to the 'provinceCode' parameter, but doesn't explain what format the province code should be (string format, valid values, examples) or provide any additional semantic context beyond what's implied by the parameter name itself.
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 clearly states the action ('Get all cities') and target resource ('within a specific province'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cities' or 'get_province_cities_municipalities', which appear to have overlapping functionality.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that appear related (like 'get_cities', 'get_province_cities_municipalities', 'get_region_cities'), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus those other options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, output format, or pagination. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, behavioral context, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.
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%, with one parameter ('provinceCode') undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'a specific province' but doesn't add meaning beyond that—it doesn't explain what 'provinceCode' is (e.g., format, examples, or constraints), failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all sub-municipalities within a specific province'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_province_municipalities' or 'get_district_sub_municipalities', which might have overlapping scope, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for geographic queries (e.g., 'get_province_municipalities', 'get_region_sub_municipalities'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information ('Get specific region by code').
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 the complexity (1 required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or parameter details beyond a basic hint, leaving the agent under-informed for proper tool invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'by code', which hints at the 'code' parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain what format the code should be (e.g., string pattern, valid values), leaving the agent with incomplete semantic understanding.
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 'Get specific region by code' clearly states the verb ('Get'), resource ('region'), and key constraint ('by code'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_regions' (plural) or 'get_region_barangays', which would require a higher score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_regions' for listing all regions, 'get_region_barangays' for related data), the agent receives no explicit or implied direction about appropriate contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns all barangays or paginated results, error handling for invalid region codes, response format, or performance considerations. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral expectations, and return values. For a tool with one required parameter and multiple siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'within a specific region' which implies the 'regionCode' parameter, but doesn't explain what regionCode is (e.g., format, valid values, or examples). With 1 undocumented parameter, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's inferred from the schema property name.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'barangays within a specific region', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_barangays' (which likely gets all barangays without filtering) or 'get_region' (which gets region details), but the scope is clear.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_barangays' (unfiltered) or 'get_region_barangays' versus other region-specific tools. The description implies usage when needing barangays filtered by region, but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions retrieving data ('Get all cities') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, pagination, rate limits, error conditions, or output format. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
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 the complexity (query tool with many siblings), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like how results are returned, what 'all cities' entails (e.g., complete list vs paginated), or how it differs from similar tools in the server.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'regionCode', and the tool description doesn't add any parameter semantics. It mentions 'specific region' but doesn't explain what 'regionCode' represents (e.g., format, examples, valid values), leaving the parameter meaning unclear beyond what the bare schema provides.
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 clearly states the action ('Get all cities') and target resource ('within a specific region'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_cities' or 'get_region_cities_municipalities', which would require more specificity about scope or output format.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for geographic queries (e.g., 'get_cities', 'get_region_cities_municipalities', 'get_region'), the description lacks any context about differentiation, prerequisites, or appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe any behavioral traits: no information about permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what format the data returns (e.g., list, JSON structure). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately.
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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return data looks like (structure, fields), doesn't mention error handling or edge cases, and provides minimal parameter guidance. Given the complexity of geographic data and many similar sibling tools, more context is needed for effective use.
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?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description mentions 'within a specific region' which implies the parameter is a region identifier, but doesn't specify what 'regionCode' represents (e.g., numeric code, abbreviation, name), valid formats, or examples. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter name itself.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all cities and municipalities within a specific region', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_cities' (which lacks region specificity) or 'get_region' (which returns region data, not cities/municipalities), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from close siblings like 'get_region_cities' or 'get_region_municipalities'.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that fetch similar geographic data (e.g., 'get_region_cities', 'get_region_municipalities', 'get_cities', 'get_municipalities'), there's no indication of when this combined cities/municipalities tool is preferred over separate tools or other region-based queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes (list of names, objects with details), potential errors (invalid region codes), or performance characteristics (e.g., pagination). The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that states exactly what the tool does without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality ('Get all municipalities within a specific region') and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place in this efficiently structured description.
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 the complexity (1 required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'region' is in this context, what data is returned about municipalities, or how to handle potential issues like invalid region codes. For a tool with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description should provide more context about both inputs and expected outputs.
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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'within a specific region' which implies the 'regionCode' parameter is required, but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid region code (format, examples, or where to find valid codes). Given the low coverage, the description fails to adequately compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all municipalities within a specific region'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_municipalities' (which presumably gets all municipalities without regional filtering) and 'get_region' (which gets region details rather than its municipalities). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all relevant siblings like 'get_region_cities_municipalities' which might return both cities and municipalities.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid region code), exclusions (e.g., whether it returns only municipalities or includes cities), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'get_region_cities_municipalities' or 'get_municipalities'. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions validation and returning a type, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the code doesn't exist), performance characteristics, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. There's no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'type' means (e.g., region, province), the return format, or error cases. For a validation tool in a geographic context with many siblings, more context is needed.
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?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'code' is a 'geographic code,' but doesn't specify format, examples, or constraints (e.g., numeric, alphanumeric, length). This insufficiently compensates for the low schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Validate if a geographic code exists and return its type.' It specifies the verb (validate), resource (geographic code), and outcome (return type). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_by_name' or 'get_hierarchy' that might also handle geographic codes.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for geographic data retrieval (e.g., 'get_city', 'get_region'), the description lacks context about whether this is for code validation only, when to prefer it over direct lookup tools, or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the code is invalid), response format, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 the complexity of having 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'barangay' is, what the return data looks like, or how errors are handled, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds minimal value by specifying that the 'code' parameter is used to get a 'specific barangay'. It doesn't explain what format the code should be (e.g., numeric, string pattern) or provide examples, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'specific barangay by code', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_barangays' (plural) or 'search_by_name', which could retrieve similar data through different mechanisms.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_barangays', 'search_by_name', and 'validate_code' that might overlap in functionality, the description offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns all barangays or paginated results, error handling for invalid city codes, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action.
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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of barangay objects), error cases, or how to interpret the city code. For a tool with one required parameter and multiple siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'within a specific city', implying the 'cityCode' parameter identifies the city, but doesn't explain what a city code is (e.g., format, source, or validation). This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema but leaves key details undocumented.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('barangays within a specific city'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_barangay' (singular) and 'get_barangays' (all barangays without city filter), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_city' or 'get_city_barangays' alternatives in the list.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_barangays' (unfiltered) or 'get_city' (city details only). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid city code, or exclusions for when other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but reveals nothing about behavioral traits: no information on whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list structure, pagination). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the essential information ('Get all cities and municipalities within a specific district'). There is zero wasted verbiage, tautology, or unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, scope, and constraint.
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 the complexity (geographic data retrieval with many similar siblings), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects: how results are structured, whether they include additional metadata (e.g., codes, populations), error handling for invalid district codes, or performance considerations. The agent is left with significant gaps about what to expect from this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'within a specific district' which implies the 'districtCode' parameter is required to specify which district, adding some semantic meaning. However, it doesn't explain what format the districtCode should be (e.g., numeric code, string identifier), valid values, or examples, leaving the parameter only partially documented.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all cities and municipalities within a specific district'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_district_cities' or 'get_district_municipalities' by specifying it returns both cities AND municipalities. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_district' or 'get_district_barangays', leaving some sibling differentiation incomplete.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_district_cities', 'get_district_municipalities', 'get_cities', 'get_municipalities'), there's no indication of when this combined cities/municipalities tool is preferred over the separate ones, or what distinguishes it from broader tools like 'get_cities' or 'get_municipalities'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get') but fails to mention critical details like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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 the complexity of geographic data tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter details, or output format, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool effectively in context with its many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'districtCode' undocumented. The description adds minimal value by implying that 'districtCode' identifies a specific district, but it doesn't clarify the format, valid values, or examples. This partially compensates for the schema gap but remains insufficient for full parameter understanding.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all sub-municipalities within a specific district'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_district_municipalities' or 'get_district_cities_municipalities', which might retrieve similar or overlapping data, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_district_municipalities' or 'get_district_cities_municipalities' from the sibling list. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, offering only a basic functional statement without comparative insight.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it is likely non-destructive, but does not specify aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.
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 the complexity of a data retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, usage context, and parameter specifics, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'a specific island group', which aligns with the parameter 'islandGroupCode', adding some meaning. However, it does not explain the code format, possible values, or constraints, leaving the parameter semantics partially unclear. With one parameter and low coverage, this is a minimal but adequate baseline.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'municipalities within a specific island group', making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_municipalities' or 'get_island_group_cities', which could have overlapping or similar functionality, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_municipalities', 'get_island_group_cities'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this is a simple lookup, if it requires authentication, what format the output takes, or if there are any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality without any wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's purpose in a clear and structured manner, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 the lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of provinces with details), how to interpret the islandGroupCode, or any behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'within a specific island group', which implies the 'islandGroupCode' parameter identifies the island group. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the parameter is undocumented in the schema, and the description doesn't clarify what valid codes are, their format, or where to obtain them. This provides minimal value beyond the parameter name itself.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'provinces within a specific island group', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_island_group' or 'get_provinces' by specifying the hierarchical relationship, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with tools like 'get_island_group_regions' or 'get_island_group_cities'.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for geographical queries (e.g., 'get_island_group_regions', 'get_island_group_cities'), there is no indication of when this specific province-level query is appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or return format. The description is minimal and adds no context beyond the basic action.
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?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core action. There is zero waste, making it easy to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'Get' entails (e.g., data returned, errors), doesn't differentiate from siblings, and provides minimal parameter guidance, making it inadequate for full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by code', which adds meaning to the 'code' parameter by indicating it's a municipality identifier. However, it doesn't specify format, examples, or constraints, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('specific municipality'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_municipalities' (plural) by specifying 'specific' and 'by code', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_city' or 'validate_code' which might have overlapping functions.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_city', 'get_municipalities', and 'validate_code', the description lacks context on prerequisites, distinctions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'Get[s] all barangays' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the results come in, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid municipality codes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the key information.
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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and many similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return format, error conditions, usage context relative to alternatives, or parameter details needed for effective use. For a tool in this complex sibling environment, more contextual information is required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'within a specific municipality' which implies the 'municipalityCode' parameter identifies the municipality, but doesn't explain the code format, validation, or examples. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond what's inferred from the parameter name.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'barangays within a specific municipality', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_barangay' (single barangay) and 'get_municipalities' (list of municipalities), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_municipality' (single municipality) or 'get_province_barangays' (barangays at province level).
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for retrieving barangays at different geographic levels (e.g., 'get_province_barangays', 'get_district_barangays', 'get_island_group_barangays'), the description lacks any context about when this municipality-level retrieval is appropriate versus other options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'all barangays' entails (e.g., complete list or limited). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and return values (e.g., list format, fields). For a tool with such sparse structured data, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'provinceCode' identifies 'a specific province', clarifying the parameter's role. However, it doesn't explain the format or constraints of 'provinceCode' (e.g., expected values, validation), leaving gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it adds some value but not fully.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'barangays within a specific province', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like 'get_province_cities' or 'get_region_barangays', which would require a 5.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_barangays' (which might fetch all barangays) or 'get_province' (which might return province details). The description implies usage for barangay retrieval within a province but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a 'Get' operation (implying read-only) but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, error conditions, or what format the data returns. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (list format, data structure), error handling, or important constraints. Given the rich sibling tool ecosystem, more context about this tool's specific role is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds that the parameter is for a 'specific province', which provides context beyond the schema's bare 'provinceCode' string. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this minimal addition doesn't fully compensate - it doesn't explain what format provinceCode should be (e.g., numeric code, abbreviation) or provide examples.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all cities and municipalities within a specific province'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_province_cities' or 'get_province_municipalities' by specifying both cities AND municipalities, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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 versus alternatives is provided. With many sibling tools for geographic data retrieval (like get_province_cities, get_province_municipalities, get_cities, etc.), the description offers no context about when this specific combination tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it returns all municipalities or paginated results, error handling for invalid province codes, or performance considerations like rate limits. The description is too basic for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.
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 the complexity (a query tool with many siblings), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, usage context, and parameter specifics, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation in a rich sibling environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'a specific province', which implies the 'provinceCode' parameter, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify the format or valid values for 'provinceCode', leaving gaps in parameter understanding. The baseline is adjusted upward slightly due to the single parameter, but not fully compensated.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('municipalities') with scope ('within a specific province'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like 'get_municipalities' (which might get all municipalities without province filtering) or 'get_province_cities_municipalities' (which might include cities), leaving room for ambiguity.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for geographic queries (e.g., 'get_municipalities', 'get_province_cities_municipalities'), the description lacks context about prerequisites, filtering needs, or comparisons, offering minimal help in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all districts' entails (e.g., pagination, format). This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 the complexity (a read operation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, and behavioral context, making it insufficient for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds some meaning by implying the parameter 'regionCode' specifies the region. However, it doesn't explain the parameter's format, constraints, or examples, leaving gaps. With one parameter and low coverage, this is a minimal baseline.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('districts within a specific region'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_districts' or 'get_region', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_districts', 'get_region'), the description lacks context on usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on naming alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or output format (e.g., list structure, pagination). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Get all provinces within a specific region'—front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action and scope without redundancy.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It adequately states the purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, performance), parameter details, and output information. For a tool in a complex sibling set, more guidance on usage and results is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'regionCode' identifies 'a specific region', clarifying the parameter's role. However, it doesn't explain the code format (e.g., string pattern, examples) or validation rules, leaving the schema's undocumented parameter partially but not fully compensated.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('provinces within a specific region'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_provinces' (all provinces) and 'get_region' (region details) by specifying the regional scope. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_island_group_provinces' or 'get_province' for granularity.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_provinces', 'get_island_group_provinces', 'get_region'), the description lacks context for selection, such as whether this is for administrative hierarchy navigation or data filtering. It implies usage by specifying 'within a specific region' but offers no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like data format, errors, or usage context relative to siblings, which are crucial for a tool in a crowded namespace with no structured support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, with one undocumented parameter 'regionCode'. The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'regionCode' specifies the region, but doesn't clarify the format (e.g., string pattern, codes vs. names) or provide examples. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all sub-municipalities within a specific region', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_municipalities' or 'get_region_municipalities' by focusing specifically on sub-municipalities within a region, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_region_municipalities', 'get_province_sub_municipalities'), there is no indication of the specific use case, prerequisites, or differences between them, leaving the agent to infer from naming alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a search operation, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether results are paginated, what format the results take, whether there are rate limits, or how fuzzy matching works. The description provides only basic functional information without operational context.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's core functionality. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration or wasted words.
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?
For a search tool with 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, result format, search behavior (exact vs. fuzzy matching), or how this tool relates to the many specific retrieval sibling tools. The description provides only basic functional context.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters, the description provides no information about what the 'name', 'type', or 'limit' parameters mean or how they should be used. The description mentions searching 'by name' which hints at the 'name' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'type' parameter's purpose or acceptable values, nor the 'limit' parameter's effect on results.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose as searching for geographic entities by name across all administrative levels (regions, provinces, cities, municipalities, barangays). It specifies both the verb ('search') and the resource ('geographic entities'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_barangay or get_cities which appear to retrieve specific entities rather than search across all levels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool should be used for broad searches across all geographic entity types, while sibling tools like get_barangay or get_cities appear to retrieve specific entity types. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus the many specific retrieval tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'List all cities' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential rate limits, pagination needs, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of names, objects with details). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List all cities') and specifies the scope ('in the Philippines'), making it easy to parse quickly.
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 the complexity (a list operation with many sibling tools), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'cities' means (e.g., including municipalities?), how results are returned, or any limitations (e.g., all cities at once vs. paginated). For a tool in a crowded namespace, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't miss anything. No points are deducted since there's nothing to compensate for.
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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all cities in the Philippines'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_city' (singular) or 'get_region_cities', which might filter by region. This prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_city' (for a specific city), 'get_region_cities' (for cities in a region), or 'search_by_name' (for searching). It simply states what it does without context about when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List all' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, sorting, or what format the list returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded, immediately communicating the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.
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 the lack of annotations, no output schema, and many similar sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'districts' means in this context, how results are structured, or how this differs from other district-related tools, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is correct for zero-parameter tools.
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 clearly states the action ('List all') and resource ('districts in the Philippines'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_district' (singular) or 'get_region_districts', leaving some ambiguity about scope.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_district' (for a specific district) or 'get_region_districts' (for districts within a region). With many similar sibling tools, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List all' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether results are paginated, sorted, include metadata, or have rate limits. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information.
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 the complexity of having many sibling tools and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify scope (national vs filtered), return format, or behavioral expectations. For a tool in this rich context, more information would help the agent use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here since there are no parameters to explain. Baseline 4 is correct for zero-parameter tools.
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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('municipalities in the Philippines'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_municipality' (singular) or 'get_province_municipalities', which could cause confusion about scope.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_province_municipalities' or 'get_region_municipalities', there's no indication whether this tool returns all municipalities nationwide or if it should be preferred over filtered versions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, pagination requirements, data freshness, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't address what format the list returns, whether it's paginated, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. Given the rich sibling tool ecosystem, more contextual guidance would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it appropriately doesn't mislead about parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 clearly states the action ('List all') and resource ('barangays in the Philippines'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_barangay' (singular) or 'get_region_barangays' (filtered by region), which would require more specific scope clarification.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_barangay' (for a specific barangay) or filtered listing tools (e.g., 'get_region_barangays'). The description implies a comprehensive list, but doesn't specify use cases or exclusions relative to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if the districtCode is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., list structure, barangay fields), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a data retrieval tool with 1 parameter, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'districtCode' identifies 'a specific district' to filter barangays, which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format examples, constraints, or validation rules for districtCode.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all barangays within a specific district'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_barangay' (singular) and 'get_barangays' (all barangays without district filter), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'within a specific district', suggesting this tool is for filtered retrieval rather than general listing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_barangays' (unfiltered) or 'get_district' (district details only), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'List[s] all island groups', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this returns a complete list, pagination behavior, error conditions, or data freshness. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. There's zero waste—every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or sibling differentiation. Without annotations or output schema, more context (e.g., return structure, limitations) would improve completeness for agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids misleading or redundant information about non-existent parameters.
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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all island groups in the Philippines', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_island_group' (singular) or 'get_island_group_provinces', which might retrieve related but different data, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_island_group' for a single group, 'get_island_group_provinces' for details), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, sorting, format of returned data, or whether it includes metadata. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't address the complexity of sibling relationships or provide any context about the return format, which could be important for an agent to use it correctly alongside other tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as no compensation is needed.
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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all provinces in the Philippines'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_province' (singular) or 'get_region_provinces', which might provide similar or overlapping functionality.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_province', 'get_region_provinces', 'get_island_group_provinces'), there's no indication of whether this is the comprehensive list or how it differs from filtered/province-specific tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List all' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this returns all regions at once or uses pagination, what format the regions are returned in, or whether there are any rate limits or authentication requirements for this geographic data service.
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?
The description is perfectly concise at just four words, front-loading the essential information ('List all regions') with the geographic scope ('in the Philippines') as necessary context. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information about what the tool does. However, given the rich ecosystem of sibling tools and lack of annotations, it should ideally provide more context about when to use this versus alternatives and what format the regions are returned in.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score would be 4 even without parameter information in the description. The description correctly indicates this is a parameterless operation that returns all regions, which aligns perfectly with the empty input schema.
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 clearly states the action ('List all') and resource ('regions in the Philippines'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_region' (singular) or 'get_island_group_regions', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific list-all tool versus more targeted alternatives.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools available. With numerous alternatives like 'get_region' (singular), 'get_island_group_regions', and 'search_by_name', the agent receives no explicit or implied direction about when this comprehensive listing tool is preferred over more specific queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![1777316659371011 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xiaobenyang-com/1777316659371011/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xiaobenyang-com/1777316659371011)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![1777316659371011 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xiaobenyang-com/1777316659371011/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xiaobenyang-com/1777316659371011)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/xiaobenyang-com/1777316659371011'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server