Create a QGIS-ready Ordnance Survey vector tile profile with proxy or direct URL mode for use in UK geospatial projects.
Return a QGIS-ready OS vector tile profile (proxy or direct URL mode).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| srs | No | ||
| tool | No | ||
| style | No | ||
| delivery | No | ||
| useProxy | No | ||
| inlineMaxBytes | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | 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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the agent knows the operation is safe and non-mutating. The description adds a small behavioral detail: the profile can be returned in proxy or direct URL mode. No mention of auth, rate limits, or data package requirements is made, but the annotations cover the key safety traits.
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?
One sentence with no filler; the core action and key mode distinction are front-loaded. The description is terse but each phrase carries useful information, and there is no redundant repetition of the tool name or schema.
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?
The tool has six optional parameters and an output schema, but the description is too sparse to guide correct invocation. An agent cannot infer how to choose between srs 3857 and 27700, how delivery mode interacts with useProxy, or what a 'profile' contains. The output schema may document return shape, but the input side remains largely unexplained.
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 does not explain srs, style, delivery, useProxy, or inlineMaxBytes. The phrase 'proxy or direct URL mode' loosely maps onto useProxy/delivery, but the other five parameters remain unexplained. The schema's enums provide some structure, yet the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Return') and a named resource ('QGIS-ready OS vector tile profile'), with a parenthetical clarifying two delivery modes. It distinguishes from the sibling os_vector_tiles_descriptor by emphasizing QGIS readiness and proxy/direct URL output, though it does not explicitly name any alternative tool.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as os_vector_tiles_descriptor or os_maps_raster_tile. It does not mention selection criteria, prerequisites, or conditions that would favor proxy vs direct URL mode. The single sentence leaves all usage decisions to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.