Retrieve Dutch NDW charging point data by city, availability, status, or connector type to locate compatible EV charging stations.
Laadpunten lijst [GET /v1/ndw/laadpunten]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| beschikbaar | No | ||
| connector_types[] | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it adds nothing: no statement of pagination behavior, default page size, result volume, or auth requirements. The GET path hints at a read, but the description itself is behaviorally silent.
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 fragment is short and front-loaded, but brevity here is under-specification rather than economy: nothing in the single phrase conveys actionable information beyond the tool name and the raw endpoint.
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 6-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies no filtering semantics, no pagination model, and no return-shape hints. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct call from this definition.
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?
Six parameters at 0% schema description coverage (city, page, status, per_page, beschikbaar, connector_types[]), and the description explains none of them. It does not state what 'beschikbaar' means, the status values, or the connector_types array format, so it fully fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names the resource ('Laadpunten' = charging points) and the HTTP endpoint implies a list operation, so the intent is inferable. However it is a bare Dutch noun phrase with no verb, no scope statement, and no differentiation from the related NDW siblings (getapi_ndw_emissiezones, getapi_ndw_truckparking).
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of filtering intent, pagination expectation, or when to prefer a sibling tool. The agent must guess entirely from the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.