Fetch Brazil's INPE satellite data collections. Returns summaries and JSON for queries on Brazilian satellite data or CBERS, no authentication needed.
ブラジルINPEの衛星データコレクション一覧を返す（認証不要）。
例:「ブラジルの衛星データ」「CBERS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 30、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, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two valuable behaviors: authentication is not required, and output is split between a display summary in content and JSON in structuredContent. It still omits read-only confirmation, response size/pagination behavior, and error conditions, which for a no-annotation tool is a meaningful gap.
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?
Front-loaded purpose line, then return-format note, then the arg doc; every sentence is short and functional. The 'Args:' formatting is slightly boilerplate but not wasteful.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description correctly fills that gap by explaining that content holds a summary and structuredContent holds JSON. For a single-parameter list tool this is nearly complete; only pagination and result-size expectations are unaddressed.
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 default of 30, but the description supplies the upper bound (max 100) that the schema lacks. This is exactly the compensation the low-coverage case requires, though it says nothing about offset/paging semantics.
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 (returns a list) and resource (Brazilian INPE satellite data collections), and the parenthetical 'no auth required' plus the CBERS example make the resource identifiable. It does not explicitly name the sibling inpe_search as the contrasting tool, so sibling differentiation relies on the agent's inference.
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 query examples ('Brazil satellite data', 'CBERS collections') imply when this tool is useful, and the no-auth note is a useful precondition. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of inpe_search or copernicus_collections, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.