maps_tileThe URL for one map tile, by zoom, column and row. Styles: road, outdoor (rights of way and contours), light (a quiet basemap to draw on). Free. Britain only
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | Tile column at that zoom | |
| y | No | Tile row at that zoom | |
| z | No | Zoom level, 0 to 20 | |
| style | No | road, outdoor or light — outdoor has rights of way and contours |
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 provide almost no behavioral metadata, so the description carries that burden. It discloses that the result is a URL, that only Great Britain is covered, that the service is free, and what each style offers. It could also note output format or retrieval constraints, but what's disclosed is enough for a simple tile URL tool.
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 extremely compact and front-loaded: it defines the output first, then enumerates style options, and closes with cost and geographic coverage. Every clause earns its place; there is no unnecessary prose.
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?
The tool is simple enough that the description plus complete schema is mostly sufficient: it explains the return value, supported styles, price, and geographic scope. Minor gaps remain such as tile range semantics for x/y and lack of an explicit output format, but these are not material for this tool's basic usage.
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 schema already documents x, y, z, and style at full coverage, so the description does not need to redefine them. It adds useful nuance for style by explaining outdoor's rights of way/contours and light's use as a quiet basemap, but it adds no extra meaning to the tile coordinates.
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 precisely that the tool returns a map tile URL determined by zoom, column, and row, with available styles enumerated. This clearly distinguishes it from broader map tools such as maps_area and other non-tile tools.
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 conveys when to use it: when a single tile URL is needed at a chosen zoom/column/row and style. However, it never mentions sibling alternatives or conditions where another mapping tool should be preferred, so the routing is only implied rather than explicit.
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.
Every tool is prefixed with a clear domain (e.g., apps_, blog_, transit_), and the suffix identifies a distinct action or resource. Overlapping tools like archive_search and news_search are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions.
All tools consistently use a domain_prefix_suffix pattern, but the suffix is sometimes a verb (create, list, search) and sometimes a noun (inbox, status, address). This minor mixing prevents a perfect score but remains predictable and readable.
With 113 tools, the count is far beyond the typical well-scoped range, even for a broad personal assistant. While each tool is distinct and serves a purpose, the sheer number is overwhelming and could be better organized into separate domain-specific servers.
Each domain has near-complete lifecycle coverage, including CRUD and search where relevant, with only minor gaps such as missing apps_delete or events_update. The wide range of covered domains itself demonstrates strong completeness for a general assistant.