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 issues but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or return format. For a read operation with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose efficiently, making it easy to parse. Every part of the description earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and key constraint.

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 (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'OSMOSE issues' are, how results are returned, or behavioral aspects like rate limits. For a tool with rich input options but no structured output or safety hints, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema fully documents all parameters (username, level, bbox, limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining 'OSMOSE issues' context or filter interactions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 OSMOSE issues last modified by a specific user.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('OSMOSE issues'), and key constraint ('by a specific user'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osmose_get_issues_by_country' or 'osmose_search_issues,' which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 sibling tools (e.g., 'osmose_get_issues_by_country' for country-based filtering or 'osmose_search_issues' for broader searches), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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