Retrieve a single exploration zone by ID to view its score, contributing drivers, and field notes for prospectivity assessment.
Get one zone with its score, the drivers behind it, and field notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zone_id | Yes | Zone id, e.g. Z-001 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful preview of the payload shape (score, drivers, field notes), but says nothing about not-found behavior or whether drivers/notes can be empty.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned content as a tight trailing clause. Nothing is padded.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. Only the missing not-found/empty-section behavior keeps it from a 5.
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 coverage is 100% with a single required parameter, and the schema itself supplies the 'Z-001' format example and regex pattern. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get one zone') and enumerates what comes back (score, drivers, field notes), which distinguishes it from list_zones by singularity. It never names the sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.
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 singular 'one zone' plus the required zone_id implies this is the detail lookup after a list_zones/rank_zones call, but the description never says when to use it versus those siblings or what to do if the zone is unknown. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.