Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
xippios-mcp

xippios-mcp

by xippios
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

usda_psd_list_countries

Read-onlyIdempotent

List USDA PSD countries with their codes and regions, then filter by region code or search text across country names, codes, and GENC codes. Use it to find valid country_code values.

Instructions

List PSD's countries with their codes and regions, the values country_code takes.

Answered from PSDData_GetCountries as packaged with this version (reference/countries.json), without an upstream call: 251 countries when packaged, in upstream order, each with its PSD region (list_regions) and its GENC code where upstream has one. Codes are PSD's own, not ISO: "US" United States, "BR" Brazil, "CH" China, "E4" European Union; aggregates such as "T3" Africa, NEC have no GENC code. meta.retrieved_at is when the package fetched the list (2026-10-28, UTC); meta.vintage is empty, as upstream gives the list no release identifier.

Args: region_code: Keep the countries of this PSD region, spelled exactly as list_regions spells it, e.g. "R01" (North America, 5 countries), "R05" (European Union), "R11" (Sub-Saharan Africa). "R15" holds four countries (Africa, NEC; Fernando Po; French Equatorial Africa; Other) although list_regions lacks it. A code no country carries yields an empty list. Omit (None) for every region. search: Keep the countries where this text occurs, ignoring case, in the code, the name or the GENC code, e.g. "united" (TC United Arab Emirates, UK United Kingdom, US United States), "USA" (US United States, by its GENC code), "E4", "brazil". Omit (None) for every country.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "usda_psd_list_countries"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
searchNo
region_codeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that results come from a packaged reference file with no upstream call, the row count (251), ordering (upstream order), the presence of meta.retrieved_at and an empty meta.vintage, and edge cases like R15 existing in data but not in list_regions and an unknown code returning an empty list. That is substantial behavioral context the annotations do not carry; the 'no upstream call' note sits in mild tension with openWorldHint=true but does not directly contradict it.

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?

Content is front-loaded (what it lists, provenance, then args) and the Args block is well organized, so an agent can scan it quickly. It is dense and occasionally repetitive about provenance/vintage, but nearly every sentence supplies usable information rather than filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, yet the description covers the return shape (code, name, PSD region, GENC code where present) plus meta fields and ordering, so nothing essential is missing. For a two-optional-param read-only list tool, this is fully adequate.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full burden, and it does: it explains that region_code must match list_regions spelling, gives three concrete example values with country counts, notes the R15 anomaly, and defines search as a case-insensitive substring over code, name, or GENC code with worked examples ('united', 'USA', 'E4', 'brazil').

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

Purpose5/5

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

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('List PSD's countries') and pins the scope to 'the values country_code takes', which immediately tells an agent this is the lookup source for country codes rather than a data-fetch tool. It is clearly separable from siblings such as usda_psd_list_regions and usda_psd_get_data.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives concrete guidance on when each filter applies ('Omit (None) for every region', 'Omit (None) for every country') and routes region spelling to list_regions, naming that sibling explicitly. It does not spell out an explicit when-not/alternative call path (e.g. 'use this before usda_psd_get_data'), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools