Summarize NATMAP map units within a bounding box or GeoJSON polygon to quickly assess UK land cover classifications.
Summarize NATMAP map units across a bbox or GeoJSON polygon.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bbox | No | ||
| tool | No | ||
| geometry | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond saying it 'summarizes,' and does not disclose what the summary contains or how the operation behaves. This is acceptable but not rich, given the annotations.
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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose and input scope.
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?
Although an output schema and read-only annotations exist, the description leaves essential invocation details unstated: whether bbox and geometry are alternatives, whether at least one is required, and what format values must take. The required-parameter count is 0, so an agent could try calling with neither input and get no guidance from the description.
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%, and the description only mentions 'bbox or GeoJSON polygon' without explaining the bbox coordinate order, geometry structure, or how the parameters relate. With no parameter-level detail in the schema, the description should compensate but does not meaningfully do so.
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 and resource: 'Summarize NATMAP map units across a bbox or GeoJSON polygon.' This clearly identifies what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from similar siblings like landis_natmap_thematic_area_summary or landis_soilscapes_area_summary, so it is not a full 5.
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 that this tool is for area-based summaries via bbox or GeoJSON polygon, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no note about whether bbox and geometry are mutually exclusive or one is required. An agent gets little help in deciding between this and related summary tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.