Read-only Pacific Crest Trail data for agents: legs by trail mile, towns, passes and lakes, and vegan resupply at 64 stops with last-checked dates.
Scored across 4 tools
The four tools have largely distinct intents: a mile-based spatial lookup, a leg retriever, a point lister, and a vegan resupply finder. There is mild overlap since find_by_trail_mile and list_pct_points both surface towns/passes/lakes, but the query modes (by mile vs. list/filter) and the vegan focus keep them separable.
Three tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (find_by_trail_mile, get_pct_leg, list_pct_points), which is readable and consistent. vegan_resupply deviates by omitting a verb, a minor inconsistency but still clear.
Four tools is well-scoped for a niche dataset covering legs, points, mile lookups, and vegan resupply. It's slightly lean but each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The surface covers the main PCT data needs: mile-based lookup, leg details, point listing with filters, and vegan resupply search. No obvious lifecycle gaps for a read-only reference dataset, though name-based point search is only implied.
Given a PCT trail mile (FarOut miles, 0 to 2656.4), returns the leg it falls in and the nearest towns, passes and lakes with their miles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mile | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by naming the data source convention ('FarOut miles') and the shape of the result, but says nothing about ordering, how 'nearest' is computed, or how results are bounded.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that puts the input first and the output second, with no filler. Slight redundancy in restating the 0–2656.4 range already encoded in the schema limits it below a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only point lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what goes in, what comes back. The unaddressed limit parameter and the undefined notion of 'nearest' are minor gaps rather than blockers.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that 'mile' uses FarOut mile convention (useful beyond the bare min/max in the schema), but the 'limit' parameter, which defaults to 4 and caps at 10, is never mentioned at all, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a concrete verb+resource (look up what is at a given PCT trail mile) and enumerates the return contents (leg, nearest towns/passes/lakes). It is clear enough to distinguish from get_pct_leg and list_pct_points in spirit, but never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent with a PCT mile and a need for nearby features can infer this is the right tool. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of when to prefer get_pct_leg or list_pct_points instead, and no preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
One of the 26 Pacific Crest Trail legs walked in 2021 (resupply to resupply): FarOut trail miles, length, 2021 days and dates, and the page that covers it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| leg | Yes | Leg number, 1 (Campo) to 26 (Canada) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context (data reflects the 2021 walk, legs are resupply-to-resupply segments) but says nothing about error behavior for out-of-range legs or what happens if the leg is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the scoping fact (26 legs, 2021) before listing contents. No filler, though the parenthetical clause makes it slightly heavy for one sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates what a leg record returns: FarOut miles, length, 2021 days and dates, and the covering page. For a one-parameter keyed lookup this is close to sufficient, with only edge-case behavior left unstated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema description already spells out 'Leg number, 1 (Campo) to 26 (Canada)' plus min/max bounds. The description's mention of '26 Pacific Crest Trail legs' reinforces the range but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the resource precisely – a PCT leg out of 26, walked in 2021, resupply-to-resupply – and enumerates the fields it carries. It lacks an explicit verb, but the noun-phrase framing makes the retrieval intent unambiguous and clearly distinct from list_pct_points and find_by_trail_mile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to pick this over find_by_trail_mile or list_pct_points, no prerequisite or exclusion conditions. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a per-leg lookup keyed by leg number.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Towns, passes, lakes and peaks along the PCT with trail mile, coordinates and trail height in feet. Filter by kind or section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| section | No | Desert, High Sierra, Northern California, Oregon or Washington |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful output context (trail mile, coordinates, height) but says nothing about defaults, pagination, or what happens when no filter is supplied, so it adds modest value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact sentences with the resource and return fields front-loaded, and no filler. It could be tightened further by naming a verb and dropping the redundant filter clause.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the fields returned, which is the main completeness risk for a list tool. It falls short only on default behavior (e.g., returning all points when unfiltered) and result-size/pagination expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%: 'section' is documented in the schema and 'kind' is self-describing via its enum, so the description's 'filter by kind or section' largely echoes structured data. It also arguably mislabels the space by saying 'lakes' while the enum value is 'water', adding slight confusion rather than clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names the resource (PCT points: towns, passes, lakes, peaks) and the returned attributes (trail mile, coordinates, height in feet), so an agent knows exactly what it lists. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_pct_leg or find_by_trail_mile, leaving a small ambiguity about when this list tool is the right pick.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage signal is 'Filter by kind or section,' which describes the parameters rather than when to choose this tool over find_by_trail_mile or get_pct_leg. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Vegan resupply at common PCT stops: what each town or store carries, whether a mailed box is advised, and the date each entry was last checked. Search by town name, or by a mile range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| town | No | Part of a town name, like Idyllwild or Tahoe | |
| toMile | No | ||
| fromMile | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds useful context: it discloses returned fields (what each stop carries, mailing advice, last-checked date), but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or pagination.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences: the first lists exactly what the tool returns, the second states the two lookup modes. No filler, and the value proposition is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only, zero-required-param lookup with no output schema, the description covers what's returned and how to query it. The only gap is the underspecified fromMile/toMile semantics that the schema leaves blank.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 33%, with toMile and fromMile carrying no descriptions. The description clarifies that town accepts partial names and that mile filtering is a range search, partially compensating, but it leaves the mileage semantics (inclusive bounds, units) undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific noun-resource (vegan resupply options at PCT towns/stores) with the exact data fields returned, distinguishing it from generic trail tools like list_pct_points or get_pct_leg.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains the two access patterns (search by town name, or by mile range), which gives clear context for when to use it. It doesn't name an alternative sibling or state when not to use it, so it falls 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.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
find_by_trail_mileget_pct_leglist_pct_pointsvegan_resupply
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.