bbox-mcp-server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Identifies the destination tool (visual Bounding Box tool) which provides useful context. However, omits behavioral details like URL persistence, authentication requirements, or validation behavior for invalid coordinate strings.

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?

Two well-structured sentences with zero waste. First sentence front-loads purpose and destination; second covers input flexibility. Every word earns its place.

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?

Appropriately complete for a single-parameter tool. Covers input formats and destination behavior. Minor gap: does not explicitly state that the tool returns a URL string (though implied by 'generates a URL').

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%, establishing baseline 3. Description lists supported formats (WKT, GeoJSON, ogrinfo extent, raw strings) but largely mirrors schema description without adding syntax constraints, validation rules, or format selection guidance.

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 specific action (generates URL), destination resource (visual Bounding Box tool), and function (display coordinates on map). Clearly distinguishes from data-retrieval siblings like search_overpass and get_bounds by focusing on visualization/sharing.

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?

Implies usage context through reference to 'visual Bounding Box tool' and coordinate display, distinguishing it from raw data retrieval tools. However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against sibling alternatives.

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