CHGIS MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a query operation ('Query historical place details'), implying it's read-only, but doesn't mention other important behaviors like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what 'historical' entails. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality immediately clear.

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 read operation with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about behavioral traits, differentiation from siblings, and what 'historical place details' actually returns. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally hint at return values.

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 description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does all the work, though the description could have explained why the ID format matters or when to use different formats.

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 ('Query historical place details') and resource ('by unique ID'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_places' or 'get_place_historical_context', which likely have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_places' or 'get_place_historical_context'. It mentions 'by unique ID' which implies usage when you have a specific ID, but doesn't explicitly state this as a guideline or mention exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.