cityjson_upgradeUpgrade an older CityJSON dataset to the version supported by the installed cjio, making it ready for further processing and validation.
Upgrade an older supported CityJSON file to the version supported by the installed cjio.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the outcome but not whether the input dataset is modified in place, whether a new dataset handle is returned, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap for a transformation tool.
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?
One concise sentence that states the action, input, and target result with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficiently sized.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the return value or mutation behavior of the upgrade operation. It does not explain what happens after upgrade, how the result is used, or whether the original dataset handle remains usable, leaving an agent uncertain in a processing pipeline.
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 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents dataset_id. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level detail, but none is needed beyond 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 ('Upgrade') and resource ('older supported CityJSON file') and defines the target state ('version supported by the installed cjio'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling transformation tools like translate or reproject, which do not perform version upgrades.
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 intended use case is implied: use it when a CityJSON file is older than the version cjio supports. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it, how to detect whether an upgrade is needed, or mention any alternative approach.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.