Provides plain-English explanations of GIS issue types and site terms, including detection thresholds, automatic actions, and typical causes.
Plain-English explanation of an issue type or site term (e.g. 'sliver_polygon', 'closure', 'iou'), with the detection thresholds used, the automatic action and typical causes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| check | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the response includes detection thresholds, the automatic action, and typical causes, which is meaningful beyond the schema, but it does not explicitly confirm that the tool is read-only and side-effect-free, nor does it mention any auth or rate-limit 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant filler. Each part earns its place by naming the purpose, the expected input style, and the returned explanatory content.
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 one-parameter explanatory tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the input concept and what the response will contain. It falls short only on explicit read-only behavior and on whether `check` values are validated against an enumeration.
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 0%, so the description must supply parameter semantics. It does explain that the single `check` parameter is an issue type or site term and gives three concrete examples, but it does not say whether values must be exact slugs, whether there is a canonical list, or how to handle unknown terms.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it explains an issue type or site term in plain English. The examples ('sliver_polygon', 'closure', 'iou') clarify what counts as a check and distinguish this explanatory tool from action-oriented siblings like find_issues or repair_dataset.
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 when the tool is useful—when an agent needs to understand an issue term, its thresholds, automatic action, or causes—but it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of siblings such as find_issues or inspect_dataset. There are no exclusions or alternative-routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.