Retrieve saved hiking routes and filter them by status: completed hikes or planned projects. Use it to review past outings or organize upcoming itineraries.
Liste les itinéraires enregistrés ; done=True : seulement les randos faites,
done=False : seulement les projets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| done | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| routes | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the filtering behavior of `done` but does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention ordering, pagination, or any auth requirements for accessing saved routes.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the core action and then enumerates the parameter semantics. No filler or redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. With only one optional parameter, the description covers the essential semantics; the only gap is the unstated behavior when `done` is omitted.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines `done=True` as completed hikes and `done=False` as planned projects. It does not explain the default (null) case, which would list everything.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Liste les itinéraires enregistrés"), making clear it returns stored/saved routes rather than searched ones. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_route or find_hiking_routes, but the word "enregistrés" implies a scoping distinction an agent can infer.
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 explains what each value of `done` means, which implicitly tells the agent when to set it, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_route or find_hiking_routes. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.