Inspects a parcel dataset in read-only mode to surface issues, filter them by check or severity, paginate results, and optionally return issue geometries as WKT.
Inspect a parcel dataset (read-only). Filter issues by check name(s) and severity(ies), page with limit/offset, and set include_wkt to get each issue's geometry (working CRS WKT).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| check | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| severity | No | ||
| config_path | No | ||
| include_wkt | 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 does real work by disclosing read-only behavior and that include_wkt returns each issue's geometry as working CRS WKT. However, it does not explain the return shape, default filtering behavior, config_path effects, or pagination behavior beyond the parameter names.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and then the main filtering/pagination/output switches. It is efficient, though the second sentence is a dense list and the first sentence's broad 'inspect' framing sits slightly awkwardly with the issue-focused detail that follows.
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 7-parameter read-only tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the main filtering, paging, and include_wkt behavior. It remains incomplete because path and config_path are undocumented and the return structure and default behavior when filters are omitted are not described.
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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies check name(s), severity(ies), limit/offset pagination, and include_wkt geometry output, but says nothing about the required path parameter's expected value or the config_path parameter, and gives no accepted check/severity values.
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: inspect a parcel dataset read-only, and clarifies that it filters issues. It is understandable without opening the schema, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as find_issues or explain_issue.
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?
Usage is implied by 'Inspect a parcel dataset (read-only)' and the filtering/paging details, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives like find_issues or repair_dataset, so an agent must infer selection from the operation semantics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.