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. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 core purpose ('Get OSMOSE statistics') and adds clarifying examples ('issue counts by level, type, etc.') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word serves a purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 optional parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits (due to no annotations), output format, or usage context. It's complete enough to identify the tool's function but insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke it effectively without additional inference.

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%, with both parameters ('bbox' and 'country') documented as optional filters in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'bbox' coordinates work or what country codes are accepted. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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') and resource ('OSMOSE statistics') with specific examples of what statistics are returned ('issue counts by level, type, etc.'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'osmose_get_issue_details' or 'osmose_get_issues_by_country' by focusing on aggregated statistics rather than individual issues or filtered lists. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all statistical siblings like 'get_tag_stats'.

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 prefer this over other OSMOSE tools like 'osmose_get_issues_by_country' for country-level stats or 'osmose_search_issues' for filtered issue lists, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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