Retrieve vector tiles style and tile template URLs for UK geospatial data, enabling AI assistants to access Ordnance Survey mapping resources.
Return vector tiles style and tile template URLs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vectorTiles | Yes |
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 and side-effect profile. The description adds the specific output (style and tile template URLs), which is useful context, but it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits such as format details or potential limitations. Given the annotations carry the burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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, direct sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the action and output, making it immediately scannable and appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema is present, the description covers the essential purpose adequately. It doesn't explain what 'style' or 'tile template URLs' entail, but the output schema likely specifies the structure, and the tool is a descriptor itself. The description is sufficient for an agent to know what it returns.
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?
The input schema contains only a constant 'tool' parameter with no real inputs. Since there are zero meaningful parameters, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly doesn't attempt to.
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 action ('Return') and the resource ('vector tiles style and tile template URLs'), giving a specific output. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like os_qgis_vector_tile_profile or os_maps_wmts_capabilities, but the mention of 'style and tile template URLs' narrows the purpose well.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context, and no exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the name and sibling list without any direction, leaving it uncertain whether this is the right tool among many related OS mapping tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.