Describe PMTiles/MBTiles offline map packs and their retrieval contracts, optionally for a specific pack ID.
Describe PMTiles/MBTiles offline map packs and retrieval contracts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | No | ||
| packId | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pack | No | ||
| packs | No | ||
| fallbackOrder | No | ||
| catalogVersion | No | ||
| retrievalContracts | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) already cover the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds the specific domain (offline map packs) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations state, such as what the retrieval contracts include or any limitations. This is acceptable given annotation coverage.
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, concise sentence that directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded and free of filler. While it could be more informative, it earns its place with efficiency, though it borders on being too sparse.
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 the low schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the packId parameter and the context of retrieval contracts. It does neither. The output schema exists but is not visible; the description still fails to provide enough context for an agent to know how to invoke the tool correctly, especially since it does not clarify what 'retrieval contracts' means.
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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter explanations. The description does not mention the packId parameter at all, nor does it explain how it relates to PMTiles/MBTiles packs. An agent would have no idea what packId refers to or what values to pass, making this a critical 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 tool's purpose: to describe PMTiles/MBTiles offline map packs and retrieval contracts. The verb 'describe' and the specific resource type make it distinct from many siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other descriptor tools like os_vector_tiles_descriptor.
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. The description does not mention any preconditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer that it is for offline pack descriptions without context on when it is the right choice among many similar descriptor tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.