Retrieve the overview of biodiversity data sources and list/group codes used when querying species occurrences and protected species lists for Belgian environmental assessments.
Overzicht van alle geraadpleegde bronnen en de lijst-/groepscodes voor soorten_in_gebied en lijst.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as an informational overview, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or data freshness. Since it is a reference tool, this is adequate but could be more explicit.
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?
A single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately references the relevant sibling tools. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.
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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (which defines return values), the description sufficiently explains what the tool provides. It names the two tools whose codes it covers, which is the key contextual information. The only minor gap is not stating whether the data is static or dynamic, but this is not critical for a reference tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers them (100% coverage). Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no param-specific meaning, which is appropriate since there are none.
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 tool provides an overview of consulted sources and the list/group codes used by two specific sibling tools (`soorten_in_gebied` and `lijst`). It identifies a specific resource and its purpose, distinguishing it from the query-focused siblings. The verb 'Overzicht' (overview) is explicit.
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: when you need codes for the named tools, consult this. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not prescriptive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.