ISO country CR

Agent readability score

Strengths

• Some descriptions clearly state the tool's purpose (e.g., 'Validate whether a body is valid JSON').
• Consistent parameter structure across tools (all parameters are optional strings).

Weaknesses

• Tool names are vague and non-descriptive (e.g., 'cc-cr' provides no context about its function).
• Descriptions often fail to explain *when* to use the tool, only what it does.
• Redundant parameters (e.g., 'zone', 'json', 'url') are present in all tools without clear relevance to each.
• High overlap between tools (e.g., multiple URL validation tools with similar purposes).
• No error handling or constraints are documented for any tool.

• cc-cr — Name provides no context about ISO 3166-1 record functionality
• normalize-url — Shares parameters with 'browser-url-ok' but has distinct purpose
• web-fetch — Duplicates functionality with 'fetch-status' and 'lib-docs-hint'
• validate-json — Lacks error handling documentation
• think-steps — Name does not indicate its role as a thinking template generator

Verdict

The toolset suffers from poor naming conventions, ambiguous descriptions, and functional overlap. The lack of error handling documentation and redundant parameters make it difficult for an agent to select and use tools effectively, justifying the 45/100 readability score.

9/13/2026, 1:52:13 AM

Event narrative