List available ESA Copernicus satellite data collections without authentication. Use to find Sentinel missions and browse Copernicus datasets for space data research.
ESA Copernicus の利用可能な衛星データコレクション一覧を返す（認証不要）。
例:「Copernicusの衛星データ」「Sentinelのコレクション」
content に表示用サマリ、structuredContent に JSON を返す。
Args:
limit: 返す件数（既定 20、最大 100）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.25.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that no authentication is needed, that content holds a display summary while structuredContent holds JSON, and that the limit caps at 100. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but the key behavioral traits for a read-only listing tool are covered.
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 entry is compact and front-loads the core purpose before examples, return-format notes, and the limit argument. Every sentence contributes information; only the example phrases feel slightly redundant.
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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth requirements, return shape (content summary plus structuredContent JSON), and the single argument's bounds. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.
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% and only one parameter exists, so the description must carry meaning. It explains that limit is the number of items to return, with a default of 20 and a maximum of 100 — the max is not present anywhere in the schema, so this adds genuine value.
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: it returns a list of available ESA Copernicus satellite data collections. This distinguishes it functionally from sibling tools like copernicus_search (which presumably searches within collections), though it does not name that sibling explicitly. Clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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 notes it requires no authentication and gives example query phrasings (e.g. 'Copernicus satellite data', 'Sentinel collections'), which implies when to use it. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over copernicus_search or other collection-listing siblings, leaving the choice to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.