cityjson_spec_readRetrieve the official CityJSON 2.0.2 specification, getting the full start or a focused context around any search term to locate relevant rules.
Fetch the canonical CityJSON 2.0.2 living specification and return either the beginning or a context window around a search query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| max_chars | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description conveys a read-only operation and the conditional behavior based on whether a query is supplied. With no annotations and no output schema, though, it does not explain how max_chars affects the returned text, what format the text takes, or how the context window is determined.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently covers the source, version, and two output modes without wasting words.
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 simple read tool this is mostly adequate, but it leaves gaps around max_chars semantics, output format, and how this relates to sibling spec tools. The absence of annotations and an output schema increases the burden on the description, and those gaps remain.
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 query parameter gains some meaning from 'context window around a search query' and 'beginning' when absent. However, max_chars is not mentioned at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, the agent must infer its behavior solely from the parameter name and constraints.
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 ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('canonical CityJSON 2.0.2 living specification'), and a clear output behavior (beginning or context window around a search query). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cityjson_spec_outline and cityjson_schema_read, which target other spec artifacts.
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 use case is implied: retrieve spec text, optionally near a search query. However, the description never states when to choose this over cityjson_spec_outline or cityjson_schema_read, and it provides no exclusions or alternative conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.