get_jeep_trailsReturns Sedona jeep trail names available on the KAZM trail map. Pass a trail name to get its GPS coordinate path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trail | No | Trail slug, e.g. 'broken-arrow', 'schnebly'. Omit for the full list. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trail | No | ||
| trails | No | ||
| map_url | No | ||
| coordinates | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / trails / items / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -{}Output schema / properties / trails / items / typeRemoved value: -"object"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "coordinates": {
+ "items": {},
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "map_url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "trail": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "trails": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the specific map (KAZM) and the output (GPS coordinates), providing value 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two clear, front-loaded sentences without any waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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?
The description adequately covers returns (list vs. path) and context (Sedona, KAZM map). Output schema exists for detailed return structure, so completeness is high.
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 description reinforces the parameter's role: passing a trail name returns its GPS path, omitting returns full list. This adds meaning beyond the schema's slug examples.
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 clearly states the tool returns Sedona jeep trail names from the KAZM trail map, and optionally provides GPS coordinate paths for a specific trail. It distinguishes from siblings like get_hiking_trails by focusing on jeep trails.
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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. The description implies usage: omit trail for list, provide trail slug for coordinates, but does not compare to other tools like get_hiking_trails.
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.