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 but offers minimal information. It states the calculation action but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid coordinates), or the format of the output matrix. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, contributing to clarity without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, performance), usage context, and output format, which are crucial for an agent to invoke it correctly. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for effective tool use is insufficient.

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 description adds no specific meaning beyond what the input schema provides, as it doesn't mention any parameters or their roles. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema already documents all parameters (e.g., 'coordinates' as an array of [longitude, latitude], 'profile' with enum values). The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to, given the comprehensive schema.

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 with a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('distance and duration matrix between multiple points'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this matrix calculation from sibling tools like 'get_osrm_route' (which might calculate single routes) or 'optimize_route' (which might optimize based on such matrices), 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. For example, it doesn't explain when to choose this over 'get_osrm_route' for single routes or 'optimize_route' for routing optimization, nor does it mention prerequisites like coordinate formatting or limitations. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to select the right tool in practice.

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