datasetsList available DEM datasets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | No | List of available DEM datasets |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "results": {
+ "description": "List of available DEM datasets",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "description": {
+ "description": "Human-readable description of the dataset",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Dataset identifier name",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'DEM' context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like whether the list is exhaustive, sorted, or subject to pagination. This meets the minimum bar given strong 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, focused sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately actionable.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly states what the tool returns (a list of DEM datasets), and the output schema likely provides details on the return shape. No additional context is needed.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to add parameter semantics.
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 ('List') and a specific resource ('available DEM datasets'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like 'elevation' or 'ask_pipeworx'. Even though the tool name and title are generic, the description adds the specificity of 'DEM datasets'.
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 alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. There is no indication of how it relates to sibling tools such as 'elevation', which would be its natural companion.
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.