get_stateReturn the current workspace, map plan, and active filters for a given map_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| map_id | Yes | ||
| rationale | No | Optional short label (≤300 chars) for the map edit history, e.g. "add wildfire layer". Omit it to send nothing beyond the tool arguments. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / rationale / descriptionPrevious value: -"Short audit-log label (≤300 chars) stating the user-facing goal this call serves, e.g. \"add wildfire layer for the user's California query\". Required on every call. Stored in the operations log so map edits stay traceable — we never see your chat history."New value: +"Optional short label (≤300 chars) for the map edit history, e.g. \"add wildfire layer\". Omit it to send nothing beyond the tool arguments."Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "map_id",
- "rationale"
-]New value: +[
+ "map_id"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what the read returns (workspace, plan, active filters), but says nothing about whether the read is scoped, truncated, or requires the map to exist.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the returned content, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 getter with no output schema, the description enumerates the three returned elements, which is exactly the information the agent would otherwise lack. Only the semantics of map_id remain unaddressed.
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 50%: 'rationale' is documented in the schema, but 'map_id' has no description there and the description only says 'for a given map_id', adding no format, origin, or constraint information. It does not compensate for the coverage gap on the required parameter.
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 verb ('Return') and enumerates the returned resources (workspace, map plan, active filters), which is more concrete than the title 'Read map state'. It is distinguishable from siblings like export_workspace or list_workflows, though it never names an alternative to disambiguate.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when a sibling (e.g. export_workspace, list_workflows) would be preferable. The agent must infer usage entirely from the purpose sentence.
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.