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 mentions 'various filters' but doesn't describe what a changeset is, the search scope (e.g., global vs. local), pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or expected output format. For a search tool with 8 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place without redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a changeset is in this context, the search domain (e.g., OpenStreetMap changesets), result format, or error conditions. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool effectively despite the well-documented schema.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering capability. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Search for changesets with various filters' clearly states the verb ('search') and resource ('changesets'), and specifies the filtering capability. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_changeset' (singular retrieval) and 'get_changeset_diff' (difference analysis), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other search tools like 'search_by_tags' or 'search_pois'.

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 this tool is appropriate compared to other search tools (e.g., 'search_by_tags', 'search_pois'), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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