Query military objects from OpenStreetMap within a bounding box (south,west,north,east) using Overpass API, with optional detail level for results.
Military objects from OpenStreetMap via Overpass API. bbox = south,west,north,east.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bbox | Yes | ||
| detail | No | short |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the upstream data source (Overpass API), which hints at third-party latency and rate limits, but never states those, nor what 'military objects' includes, nor how fresh the data is.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and source, then the one critical parameter format. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse for what is left undocumented.
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?
Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists, but for a two-parameter tool with zero schema coverage the description omits the meaning of `detail`, any indication of data coverage or limits, and any guidance on choosing this over the many other geospatial sibling tools.
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 does define bbox ordering as south,west,north,east, which is genuinely valuable, but the second parameter `detail` (default 'short') is left completely unexplained — no allowed values, no effect on output size or latency.
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 names a specific resource (military objects) and its provenance (OpenStreetMap via Overpass API), which is more informative than the bare tool name. It does not differentiate from any of the ~80 siblings, and there are no obviously adjacent tools it distinguishes itself from.
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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternatives exist. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the required bbox parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.