Calculate bearing (direction) between two coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat1 | Yes | Latitude of start point | |
| lat2 | Yes | Latitude of end point | |
| lon1 | Yes | Longitude of start point | |
| lon2 | Yes | Longitude of end point |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the function without elaborating on output format (e.g., degrees from north), range, or handling of edge cases like identical points. This lack of detail limits the agent's ability to anticipate results.
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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. There is no extraneous information, and it is efficiently front-loaded.
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 the tool's simplicity, the description fails to specify the return value or output format. Since no output schema exists, the agent cannot know that the bearing is returned in degrees or as a numeric value. This gap in completeness could lead to confusion.
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 covers all four parameters with descriptions (latitude and longitude of start/end points), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already provides adequate clarity. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 calculates bearing (direction) between two coordinates. It uses a specific verb and resource, which makes the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'haversine_distance' or 'destination_point', which are related but distinct.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, edge cases, or situations where another tool might be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer the usage context from the name alone.
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.
