Lists available ESA Copernicus satellite data collections without authentication, helping users discover Sentinel datasets.
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」
Args: limit: 返す件数（既定 20、最大 100）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.41.4Input schema / properties / limit / titleRemoved value: -"Limit"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"copernicus_collectionsArguments"v0.25.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no authentication is required and that the result is bounded (default 20, max 100), but it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, the shape/fields of each collection record, or pagination beyond the hard cap.
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?
One sentence of purpose plus a compact Args block; the essential scope statement comes first. Slight overhead in formatting a single parameter as a block, but no filler sentences.
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 enumeration tool with no output schema and one optional parameter, the description covers what it returns, the no-auth condition, and the count limit. Only the record structure and any ordering convention are left unstated, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.
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 coverage is 0% and the schema exposes only a bare integer with a default, but the description supplies the missing semantics: it restates the default of 20 and adds a maximum of 100 that the schema does not declare. That meaningfully improves on the structured data for a single-parameter tool.
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 verb and resource: returns the list of available ESA Copernicus satellite data collections. The noun 'collection list' implicitly separates it from the sibling copernicus_search, which performs queries rather than enumeration, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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 example phrases ("Copernicus satellite data", "Sentinel collections") hint at when an agent would want this, but there is no explicit guidance on choosing it over copernicus_search, stac_collections, or the other INPE/DLR/UK collections siblings. Usage is implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.