Lists uploaded files awaiting layer conversion, enabling administrators to review and manage pending uploads before they become active layers.
Uploaded files waiting to become layers (admin)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the admin scoping and the 'waiting to become layers' state, which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't describe pagination, ordering, or whether the list is complete, but with zero parameters and read-only annotations, the description carries a lighter burden.
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?
A single, compact phrase that conveys the resource, state, and audience. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.
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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (uploaded files pending layer creation) and who it's for (admin). The only minor gap is not naming sibling tools like spatial_list_layers to clarify the distinction, but the state phrase 'waiting to become layers' largely covers that.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-param tools is 4. The description's mention of 'uploads' and 'admin' gives context about what the returned list contains, which is sufficient.
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: 'Uploaded files waiting to become layers (admin)'. It clearly identifies what the tool lists (uploads pending layer creation) and scopes it to admin. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from spatial_list_layers or spatial_list_tasks, but the phrase 'waiting to become layers' distinguishes it from already-created layers.
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 context: it's for admin users to see uploaded files that haven't yet become layers. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over spatial_list_layers or spatial_upload, but the 'waiting to become layers' phrasing gives enough context for an agent to infer this is the pre-layer staging view. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.