dettaglio_sentieroRetrieve complete trail data using an OpenStreetMap relation ID. Get full hiking trail details by providing the OSM relation ID.
Restituisce i dati completi di un sentiero dato l'ID della sua relation OSM.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| osm_relation_id | Yes | ID della relation OSM |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as data freshness, error behavior, or external OSM dependency, beyond saying that complete data is returned.
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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.
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 simple read-only tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. Nothing essential is missing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter is already documented as an OSM relation ID. The description's mention of the ID does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 the specific verb 'Restituisce' and identifies the resource clearly: complete trail data given an OSM relation ID. This distinguishes the tool from search-oriented siblings like cerca_sentieri and profilo_altimetrico.
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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you already have an OSM relation ID and need the full trail record. However, the description does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as cerca_sentieri or profilo_altimetrico, so an agent must infer when this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.