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 successfully discloses that the server automatically wraps queries in bbox filters and returns structured JSON. However, it omits safety characteristics (read-only vs. destructive), rate limits, or error handling patterns that would help an agent understand operational constraints.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence stating purpose, followed by implementation details, and a dedicated section for common query patterns. Every sentence earns its place; the examples are essential for a domain-specific query language like Overpass QL.

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 no output schema exists, the description notes it 'returns structured JSON' but does not describe the JSON structure. The inclusion of tag examples compensates well for input complexity. It adequately covers the tool's functionality but could improve by describing the output format or pagination behavior.

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?

While the schema has 100% coverage (baseline 3), the description adds substantial value through the 'COMMON TAG EXAMPLES' section, providing concrete Overpass QL syntax patterns (e.g., `nwr["amenity"="restaurant"]`) that help agents construct valid 'query' parameter values beyond the generic schema description.

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 it 'Execute[s] an Overpass QL query to find POIs, roads, or other OSM features within a bounding box,' providing specific verb, resource, and scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'aggregate_overpass_h3,' which also appears to query OSM data.

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 through POI examples (restaurants, parks, roads) and notes that the server automatically wraps queries in bbox filters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. 'aggregate_overpass_h3' or 'list_osm_tags,' leaving the agent to infer based on the 'search' vs. 'aggregate' naming distinction.

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