GIS MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the operation ('Calculate statistics') and return format, but lacks critical behavioral details: required permissions, file format constraints, computational intensity, error handling, or whether it modifies input files. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. Every sentence adds value: the purpose statement, parameter explanations, and return format. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose with the Args section.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns'), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameters well, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., file handling, errors) and doesn't fully leverage the output schema to explain return values in detail. Adequate but with gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains all three parameters: 'raster_path' and 'vector_path' as file paths, and 'stats' as a list of statistics with examples (['mean', 'min', 'max', 'std']). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify default behavior when 'stats' is null.

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 specific action ('Calculate statistics of raster values within polygons') and the resource involved ('zonal statistics'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on polygon-based raster analysis, unlike tools like 'raster_band_statistics' (general raster stats) or 'focal_statistics' (neighborhood-based).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., valid raster/vector files), exclusions (e.g., non-polygon geometries), or compare to siblings like 'raster_band_statistics' or 'point_in_polygon'. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.