Create a sampling point with x,y coordinates and optional label, elevation, and attributes for GIS or CAD mapping.
Create a resource/environment sampling point with optional label, elevation, and attribute metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| unit | No | ||
| label | No | ||
| layer | No | ||
| elevation | No | ||
| attributes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It confirms this is a creation operation but says nothing about permissions required, whether the point persists, coordinate system assumptions, or return behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single efficient sentence with no waste, front-loading the core action and resource.
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 7 parameters, required coordinates, a nested attributes object, and no annotations or output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits coordinate format, unit defaults, layer behavior, and attribute structure, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.
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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It lists only three optional fields (label, elevation, attribute metadata) and omits required x/y coordinates, unit, and layer entirely, leaving critical semantics undocumented.
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 a clear verb (Create) and resource (resource/environment sampling point), which is more specific than the generic sibling names. However, it does not distinguish from create_point or similar siblings, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_point or create_monitoring_well. The description implies a specific domain (resource/environment sampling) but offers no explicit conditions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.