Identify which Ordnance Survey data packages your account can access, based on permissions, to retrieve available UK geospatial datasets.
List account-specific OS data packages (permission dependent).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | No | ||
| delivery | No | ||
| inlineMaxBytes | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| delivery | Yes | ||
| dataPackages | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds 'account-specific' scope and 'permission dependent' (authentication requirement), which is useful beyond annotations. It does not mention output structure or pagination, but the output schema covers return values.
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 wasted words. It conveys the core purpose and scope efficiently, though it omits essential parameter and usage details.
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?
Given zero schema coverage, the description must explain parameters, but it does not. It also lacks usage routing compared to siblings. The output schema covers return values, but the missing parameter semantics and minimal usage context leave the agent under-informed for a tool with no required parameters.
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 provides no explanation for the 'delivery' or 'inlineMaxBytes' parameters. The agent receives no guidance on what these control or how to set them, despite them being optional. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 'List' and the resource 'account-specific OS data packages', and notes 'permission dependent', which helps distinguish it from siblings like os_downloads_list_products (general product listing) and os_downloads_list_product_downloads. It is specific and actionable.
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 usage context via 'account-specific' and 'permission dependent' but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer that this tool is for listing packages tied to the current account rather than all products.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.