citeMap a user question to the best Vigi-Sky (or GEIPAN) URL to cite.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| best | No | ||
| lang | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| citations | Yes | ||
| provenance | Yes | ||
| alternatives | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / alternativesAdded value: +{
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / bestAdded value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / properties / doctrineRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / langAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / provenance / properties / neverAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "citations",
+ "provenance"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, informing the agent of safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool returns a URL (implying a read operation), which is consistent. However, it does not disclose edge cases like no matching URL, ambiguity handling, or response format. It minimally supplements the 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?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place without waste.
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?
Despite an output schema existing and simple parameters, the description lacks key information: parameter semantics, usage boundaries, and behavioral details (e.g., what constitutes 'best' URL). It does not guide the agent on how to prepare the query or interpret results beyond the schema. The description is insufficient for complete autonomous use.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter names 'query' and 'lang' carry no documentation. The description fails to clarify that 'query' is the user question and 'lang' is an optional language specifier. With no parameter explanations, the agent cannot determine how to properly populate these fields, causing potential misuse.
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 uses a specific verb 'Map' and clearly identifies the resource: a user question to a Vigi-Sky or GEIPAN URL. This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like 'nearby_cases' or 'object_lookup', which serve different functions. The purpose is unambiguous and directly stated.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools such as 'nearby_cases' or 'iss_passes'. It does not mention any exclusions or contextual clues that would help an agent decide between similar tools. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.