Retrieve the NATMAP map unit for a WGS84 latitude and longitude. Identify the map unit at any location to support UK geospatial analysis.
Get the NATMAP map unit at a WGS84 lat/lon.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes | ||
| tool | 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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that, such as what happens for invalid coordinates, whether a map unit is always returned, or any rate limits. With annotations present, some credit is given, but the description offers zero additional context.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is necessary; there is no fluff or repetition.
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 point lookup with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. But it omits any mention of edge cases like points outside coverage, the meaning of 'map unit', or how to select this tool over sibling lookups. The output schema covers return structure, so that gap is mitigated, but overall completeness is barely sufficient.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does specify that lat and lon are in WGS84, which adds coordinate system meaning beyond the plain 'number' type in the schema. However, it doesn't provide ranges, decimal degree format, or other constraints, leaving gaps that the schema does not fill.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'NATMAP map unit' plus the input context 'at a WGS84 lat/lon'. This distinguishes it from area-oriented siblings like landis_natmap_area_summary by implying a point query, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as landis_natmap_area_summary or landis_soilscapes_point. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or intended use cases beyond the basic function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.