cityjson_get_objectRetrieves a complete CityObject with its calculated real-world bounding box derived from referenced vertices.
Return one complete CityObject and a computed real-world bounding box derived from referenced vertices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_id | Yes | ||
| 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 burden. It does disclose a useful behavioral detail: the bounding box is computed from referenced vertices, and 'Return' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not describe error behavior for missing/invalid object IDs, response format, or whether any dataset state is affected.
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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. It conveys the core action and a key output detail efficiently.
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?
The description covers the main output (complete CityObject and bounding box), and the schema provides dataset_id context. But with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details on error cases, object_id provenance, and return structure beyond the high-level summary.
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 only 50%: dataset_id is explained, but object_id is only given a type and minLength. The description does not compensate by explaining what object_id represents, how it is formatted, or how to discover valid IDs.
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 states a specific action ('Return') and resource ('one complete CityObject'), and adds a distinctive output detail ('computed real-world bounding box derived from referenced vertices'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/query operations that operate on many objects.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cityjson_list_objects or cityjson_query. It does not mention prerequisites, such as obtaining a valid object_id from another tool, nor when a different tool should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.