land_coverRetrieves ESA WorldCover land-cover class at a point and, with buffer_m, percent share per class within that radius.
ESA WorldCover 2021 (10 m) land-cover class at a point, e.g. 40 = Cropland.
With buffer_m > 0 (max 500) also returns the percent share of each class within that radius.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes | ||
| buffer_m | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: dataset identity/version, spatial resolution, the class-code encoding, and the max 500 m buffer cap. It does not address no-data/ocean handling, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.
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, no filler, with the core purpose and result encoding front-loaded ahead of the optional-buffer behavior. Every clause carries information.
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?
With no output schema, the description does explain returns: a class code at the point, and per-class percent shares when buffer_m > 0. It stops short of describing the shape of the buffered result and leaves coordinate format to inference, so it is strong but not fully self-sufficient for a three-parameter geo 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It explains buffer_m well (values > 0 add per-class percent shares, capped at 500) but says nothing about lat/lon units, ordering, or valid ranges. It compensates for only one of three undocumented parameters.
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?
States a specific resource with provenance and granularity: 'ESA WorldCover 2021 (10 m) land-cover class at a point,' plus a concrete example of the returned encoding (40 = Cropland). That is unmistakably distinct from elevation, ndvi_timeseries, or search_imagery without opening any schema.
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 only implied by 'at a point' and by the buffer_m clause describing the extra output. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over a sibling like area_summary or elevation, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.