OpenStreetMap MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets all OSM elements' but doesn't mention performance characteristics (e.g., rate limits, result size limits), authentication requirements, or what 'all' means in practice (complete data vs. sampled). For a query tool with potentially large result sets, 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, making it immediately clear what the tool does 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?

For a read-only query tool with good schema coverage but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks important context about result format, pagination, performance limits, and differentiation from similar tools. With no annotations and no output schema, users must infer behavioral characteristics.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'bounding box' but doesn't explain coordinate systems, units, or valid ranges. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get all') and resource ('OSM elements within a bounding box'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_by_tags' or 'search_structured' that might also retrieve OSM elements with different filtering approaches.

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. With many sibling tools for querying OSM data (e.g., 'search_by_tags', 'search_structured', 'execute_overpass_query'), there's no indication of when spatial bounding box queries are preferred over tag-based or other search methods.

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