OpenStreetMap MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves diff/changes but does not specify what the diff includes (e.g., format, scope), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 concise, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It does not explain what the diff output includes (e.g., format, structure), potential errors, or how it differs from related tools like 'get_changeset'. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'changeset_id' documented as 'Changeset ID'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as examples or constraints, but since the schema is fully covered, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't compensate for gaps but doesn't need to.

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 tool's purpose as retrieving diff/changes for a specific changeset, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource 'changeset'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_changeset' or 'search_changesets', which might have overlapping or related functionality, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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, such as 'get_changeset' or 'search_changesets', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks context for distinguishing its use from sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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