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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions solving TSP but doesn't disclose computational complexity, timeouts, rate limits, or what happens with invalid coordinates. The description doesn't explain what 'optimal' means (shortest distance, fastest time, etc.) or whether this is a heuristic vs exact solution.

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 gets straight to the point. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning key constraints like the 3-12 coordinate limit upfront. Every word earns its place, but there's room for slightly more informative structure.

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 complex optimization tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (optimized route, distance, duration), performance characteristics, or error conditions. The TSP context suggests computational intensity that should be disclosed.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain how 'coordinates' relate to TSP solving, or how 'profile' affects optimization. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('solve Traveling Salesman Problem') and resource ('optimal route through all points'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_osrm_route' which likely provides standard routing rather than optimization, and 'get_distance_matrix' which calculates distances without route optimization.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get_osrm_route' for standard routing, or when the TSP optimization is appropriate versus simpler routing approaches. No prerequisites or constraints are stated beyond what's in the schema.

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