Skip to main content
Glama
xmpuspus

ph-civic-data-mcp

by xmpuspus

Compare civic indicators across places

compare_areas
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare key civic metrics for two to five Philippine locations side by side, with results in JSON or CSV format.

Instructions

Compare civic indicators for two to five Philippine places, side by side.

Calls get_area_profile for each place and builds one row per place, so an agent does not have to call the profile tool once per place and merge the results itself. locations needs 2 to 5 entries. metrics, when given, must come from a fixed allowlist of eight names, and it defaults to all eight. format is "json" or "csv". "csv" adds a CSV string under export. Examples:

compare_areas(["Cebu City", "Davao City"]) compare_areas(["Cebu City", "Davao City"], metrics=["population"])

On failure: a rejected request, such as a wrong location count, too many or duplicate metrics, an unknown metric, or a bad format, never calls get_area_profile. It returns validation_error: true and data_status "invalid_request". A place that fails to resolve still gets a row, with resolved_name None, the overall data_status becomes "indeterminate" or "unavailable", and comparable turns false with a caveat naming the unresolved place.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNo"json" (default) or "csv".json
metricsNoNames to compare, from population, population_year, poverty_incidence_pct, poverty_year, headline_inflation_pct, employment_rate_pct, infra_notice_count, earthquake_risk_level. Defaults to all eight.
locationsYes2 to 5 place names, e.g. ["Cebu City", "Davao City"].

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.8.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the internal behavior: it calls get_area_profile for each place, and on validation failure it never calls that tool. It also explains partial failure state (unresolved places get rows, data_status becomes indeterminate/unavailable, comparable false with caveat). This matches the readOnly and idempotent hints without contradiction.

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 well-structured and includes examples, but it is somewhat repetitive (e.g., the opening sentence and the aggregation explanation are similar). Still, it earns a high score because all content is relevant and directly aids usage.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description is remarkably complete. It covers normal usage, aggregation, validation errors, partial failures, and the output fields that signal these states (validation_error, data_status, comparable, caveat). The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return-value detail, and the description fills the remaining gaps.

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?

The schema already covers all three parameters, and the description enriches them further: it lists the exact metric names, the default for metrics, the format options, and the location count constraint. It also adds semantic meaning about validation rules that are not fully captured in the schema.

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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: comparing civic indicators across multiple Philippine places. It distinguishes itself from the get_area_profile sibling by noting it aggregates per-place calls into one row per place, preventing the agent from needing to call the profile tool repeatedly.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit usage examples, clarifies the allowed parameter ranges (2-5 locations, 8-metric allowlist, json/csv formats), and explains the conditions under which to use this tool versus alternatives. The failure behavior is also described, giving clear guidance on error handling.

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