Retrieve complete metadata for a saved map by its ID, including layers, view state, basemap, and terrain configuration for quick inspection.
Get one saved map's full metadata, including its layers, view state, basemap, and terrain configuration.
Args: map_id: Map id (e.g. from list_maps).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| map_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool returns but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, whether it has side effects, or if there are any limitations, errors, or permission requirements. The verb 'get' implies a read operation, but this is not made explicit.
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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose, and the second sentence explains the parameter. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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 lack of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable outline of the return value (full metadata with layers, view state, basemap, terrain). It does not cover error cases or edge conditions, but for a single-id fetch operation, the information is largely sufficient.
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 schema provides only the parameter name and type (string). The description adds useful context by giving an example source for the value ('e.g. from list_maps'), which helps an agent know how to obtain a valid map_id. It does not specify format or constraints, but the parameter is a simple identifier.
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 ('Get') and resource ('one saved map's full metadata') with a clear scope (layers, view state, basemap, terrain configuration). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_maps (which lists maps) and query (which queries features).
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 implies usage for retrieving details of a single map by ID, with an example source ('e.g. from list_maps'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.