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 the action ('snap coordinates') but doesn't explain what 'snap' entails operationally—e.g., whether it modifies data, requires network access, has rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a geospatial tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear purpose and well-documented schema, making it easy for an agent to parse 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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavioral details, or output expectations. With no annotations or output schema, more guidance would be helpful, though the high schema coverage provides some compensation.

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 (coordinate, profile, number) with descriptions and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying coordinate snapping, which aligns with the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 when the 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('snap') and resource ('coordinates to nearest road segments'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'map_match_gps' or 'get_osrm_route', which might have overlapping functionality in mapping/geospatial contexts.

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 related to routing, geocoding, and mapping (e.g., 'map_match_gps', 'reverse_geocode', 'get_osrm_route'), there's no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to help an agent choose appropriately.

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