get_region_mapOne region as its map shows it: every town with its cell (axial q, r), rank, % built, biome, whether it settled this week and its page; the capital; and the open sites a newcomer can settle on, each with its biome. No sign-in needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| regionId | Yes | A regionId from list_regions. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds the auth requirement ('No sign-in needed') plus a detailed account of what is returned, which annotations cannot convey. It does not discuss pagination or result size, but for a single-region read that is minor.
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 front-loads the resource and enumerates the payload without filler, closing with the practical 'No sign-in needed' note. It is long but every clause names concrete returned data.
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 must describe the return shape — and it does, listing each town field, the capital, and open settleable sites with their biomes. An agent knows exactly what payload to expect.
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 single regionId parameter is documented as coming from list_regions. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond that, so the schema carries the load — baseline 3.
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 a specific resource (one region's map) and enumerates its exact contents — towns with axial cells, rank, % built, biome, weekly settlement status, capital, and open sites. 'One region' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_regions, though no sibling is named 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: the regionId schema points to list_regions as the source, and 'No sign-in needed' signals accessibility. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_town, get_city, or list_regions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.