Fetch WMTS GetCapabilities for UK maps, with inline or resource delivery options to control response size and handling.
Fetch WMTS GetCapabilities with inline/resource delivery controls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | No | ||
| version | No | ||
| delivery | No | ||
| inlineMaxBytes | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| xml | No | ||
| delivery | Yes | ||
| resourceUri | 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds that delivery can be inline or resource, but it does not explain the implications of those modes or any other runtime behavior. This is modest added context beyond 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and its key delivery-related control.
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 capabilities-fetch tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it leaves the meaning of inline vs resource delivery and the role of version unspecified, which an agent would need to understand fully.
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 for the four parameters. It partially covers 'delivery' and hints at inlineMaxBytes via 'inline/resource delivery controls', but 'version' is entirely unexplained and the enum semantics are not clarified.
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 names a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('WMTS GetCapabilities'), and a distinguishing qualifier ('inline/resource delivery controls'). The 'WMTS' prefix clearly separates it from sibling capabilities tools like os_features_wfs_capabilities.
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 makes the context clear: use this when retrieving WMTS GetCapabilities. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource type is unambiguous enough that an agent can select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.