cityjson_clean_verticesRemove duplicate and orphan vertices from a CityJSON dataset and receive a new dataset ID for subsequent operations.
Remove duplicate and orphan vertices with cjio vertices_clean. Returns a new dataset_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dataset_id | Yes | Dataset handle returned by cityjson_import, cityjson_open, cityjson_import_text, or another transformation tool. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool removes vertices and returns a new dataset_id, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly address whether the input dataset is modified, deleted, or left intact. The phrase 'Returns a new dataset_id' suggests a new result, but side effects remain implicit.
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?
Two short sentences, action first, return value second, with no filler. The reference to cjio vertices_clean is relevant because it identifies the implementation and adds useful context without bloat.
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 tool with only one required parameter and no output schema, this is nearly complete: the input contract is defined by the schema and the return contract is stated in the description. The main missing piece is explicit input-dataset side-effect disclosure, but the operation's simplicity mitigates the gap.
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 single parameter dataset_id is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to compensate. It adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline.
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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and a concrete resource ('duplicate and orphan vertices'), and names the backend operation ('cjio vertices_clean'). This makes the tool's function unmistakable and clearly differentiates it from siblings like cityjson_filter_lod or cityjson_attribute_remove.
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 implies usage for cleaning vertices, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or point to any sibling tools. It leaves the selection criteria entirely to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.