bbox-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the compact option's purpose (minimize response) and return_geometry's effect (hex boundary polygons), but omits critical behavioral details like the MAPBOX_ACCESS_TOKEN requirement for geocoding, bounding box size limits, or performance implications of high resolutions.

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?

Extremely concise with two well-structured sentences. The first states purpose; the second lists input formats. No redundancy or filler.

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?

While the description covers the core function and input formats, it lacks output value specification (array of hex strings?) and omits the `location` parameter entirely from the narrative. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more comprehensive behavioral and return-value context.

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the `bbox` parameter's supported formats (WKT, GeoJSON, etc.) but does not add meaning beyond the schema's existing documentation for other parameters like `location`, `compact`, or `return_geometry`.

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?

Clearly identifies the action (Get), resource (Uber H3 cell indices), and scope (target resolution). However, it narrowly emphasizes 'bounding box area' without mentioning the alternative `location` text-search capability defined in the schema, slightly limiting the agent's understanding of the tool's full scope.

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?

Provides input format guidance (WKT, GeoJSON, etc.) which hints at when the tool can be used, but offers no explicit comparison to sibling tools (e.g., when to use this vs `aggregate_overpass_h3`) and does not clarify when to use `location` vs `bbox` parameters.

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