Browse and filter saved maps in a GeoLens catalog, returning read-only metadata such as name, visibility, and layer count, with search and paging options.
List saved maps (read-only metadata: id, name, visibility, layer count).
Args: search: Optional text filter on map name/description. limit: Max results (1-200, default 50). offset: Result offset for paging.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.25.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +200Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / offset / minimumAdded value: +0v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key trait: this is a read-only metadata listing and it enumerates exactly what is returned (id, name, visibility, layer count). It omits auth/permission requirements and whether search is case-insensitive or substring-based, which keeps it out of the top band.
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 front-loaded summary sentence plus a compact, clearly labelled arg list. Every line carries information and 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?
For a simple, zero-required-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, all three params, and the returned fields, so an agent can call it correctly. The only real gap is the absence of routing guidance relative to get_map and search_datasets.
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%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains that search filters on name/description (the schema only says string), states limit is 1-200 with default 50, and identifies offset as paging. Limit/offset are conventional enough that no further explanation is needed.
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 ('List saved maps') and scopes the return to metadata (id, name, visibility, layer count), which clearly separates it from the single-map sibling get_map. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops just short of full differentiation.
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?
Usage is only implied: listing 'saved maps' suggests browsing rather than fetching a specific map, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to get_map/search_datasets. An agent must infer the routing from the resource name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.