Retrieve a paginated list of all 1,286 AMeDAS stations in Japan, using offset and limit to control which and how many stations are returned.
List all AMeDAS stations (1286 stations) with pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of stations to return (default: 100) | |
| offset | No | Number of stations to skip (default: 0) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Maximum number of stations to return (default: 100)"Input schema / properties / offset / descriptionAdded value: +"Number of stations to skip (default: 0)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'with pagination' and the total count, but lacks details on ordering (e.g., sorted by ID or name) or pagination behavior beyond what the schema provides (limit/offset). It does not describe side effects or performance traits.
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, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.
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 simple tool and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers listing with pagination and total count. It could mention default ordering to be fully complete, but overall it covers the core functionality.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which already defines 'limit' and 'offset' with defaults. No new context about parameter usage or constraints is provided.
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 verb 'list', the resource 'all AMeDAS stations', and specifies the total count (1286) and pagination feature. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_station_info' (single station) and 'search_stations' (search).
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 for listing all stations with pagination but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'search_stations' or 'get_stations_of_type'. No usage exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.