OpenStreetMap MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, response format, or potential side effects. For a routing tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 - a single sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a straightforward purpose, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 complexity of routing (which typically involves multiple algorithms, data sources, and output formats), the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description doesn't provide enough context about what 'road/path data' includes, how results are structured, or any limitations of the routing service.

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 only 20% (only 'route_type' has a description), so the description needs to compensate. However, it doesn't mention any parameters beyond implying two points are needed. It doesn't explain what the lat/lon parameters represent, their format, or the meaning of 'route_type' options. The description adds minimal value beyond what the bare schema provides.

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: 'Get road/path data for routing between two points'. It specifies the action ('Get'), resource ('road/path data'), and context ('routing between two points'), which is more specific than just restating the name. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_osrm_route' or 'optimize_route', which likely have overlapping functionality.

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 available (like 'get_osrm_route', 'optimize_route', 'get_distance_matrix'), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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