Filters issues from the latest GIS run by bounding box, check, severity, or parcel ID and returns match count plus up to 500 rows.
Filter issues in the latest run. bbox = [min_lon, min_lat, max_lon, max_lat] (EPSG:4326). Returns the total
match count and up to limit rows (max 500).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bbox | No | ||
| check | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| severity | No | ||
| parcel_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that results are capped at `limit` (max 500) and that a total match count is returned alongside the rows, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, or what happens when filters are omitted.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose then parameter format then return shape; no filler. The second sentence wraps awkwardly but costs no clarity.
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?
The absence of an output schema is partly offset by describing the return (count plus rows), but with no annotations and 0% schema coverage the description leaves too much open — filter value formats and default behavior when nothing is supplied.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully documents bbox (order plus EPSG:4326) and hints at limit's cap, but check, severity, and parcel_id — three of five parameters — are never mentioned, leaving their accepted values and semantics unknown.
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?
"Filter issues in the latest run" gives a specific verb and resource plus scope (latest run), which separates it from explain_issue and compare_runs. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus explain_issue (drill into one issue) or compare_runs (cross-run diff). The 'latest run' qualifier hints at scope but no alternatives or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.