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 mentions validation and suggestions but lacks details on what 'commonly used' means (e.g., thresholds, data sources), whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error handling. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's 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?

For a validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the validation entails (e.g., criteria, sources), what the suggestions include, or the format of results. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and output.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear definitions for 'key' and 'value' as OSM tag components. The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on parameter usage, examples, or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Validate if an OSM tag combination is commonly used and get suggestions.' It specifies the verb ('validate'), resource ('OSM tag combination'), and outcome ('get suggestions'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tag_stats' or 'get_tag_suggestions', which might offer related functionality, preventing 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 prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as comparing it to sibling tools like 'get_tag_suggestions' or 'search_by_tags'. This lack of usage context leaves the agent with minimal direction.

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