Discover CARTO Dark Matter and Positron raster tile templates, snapshot date, attribution, and header authentication. Catalog is free; tile requests require a subscription key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context about access requirements: 'Catalog is free; tile requests require a subscription key.' This goes beyond annotations to clarify authentication/usage conditions, which is a notable behavioral disclosure.
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 two sentences, with the core discovery purpose front-loaded and the access caveat placed second. Every clause adds meaningful information, and there is no filler or redundancy.
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 parameter-less catalog discovery tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what will be discovered, the access model (free catalog vs. subscription-key tile requests), and implies a read-only operation consistent with annotations. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter meaning, and its mention of what can be discovered (templates, date, attribution, header authentication) sufficiently conveys the tool's scope without any parameter-related ambiguity.
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 'Discover' and names the exact resources: CARTO Dark Matter and Positron raster tile templates, snapshot date, attribution, and header authentication. It clearly differentiates this catalog tool from the sibling tools (elevation, find_features, overpass_query, service_status) which serve unrelated purposes.
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 implies usage for discovering basemap catalog information, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion conditions. The free-vs-subscription note gives context about access, but not about selection among sibling tools.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct: basemap_catalog, elevation, and service_status each target unique resources, while find_features and overpass_query both touch OSM data but are differentiated by abstraction level (preset categories in a small bbox vs. raw Overpass QL). Agents could still hesitate between the two OSM search tools, so not a perfect 5.
All names are lowercase snake_case, but they don't follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: most are noun phrases (elevation, overpass_query, service_status) and only find_features uses a verb. This is readable but stylistically mixed.
Five tools is a well-scoped set for a geospatial API: catalog, elevation, feature search, raw Overpass query, and service status. Each tool has a clear role and none feel redundant or excessive.
The core read-only geospatial workflows are covered: discover basemaps, sample elevation, search OSM features, run arbitrary Overpass queries, and check data/service state. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct basemap tile fetching or geocoding/reverse-geocoding), but agents can work around these with Overpass and the catalog details.