Retrieve available UK EO DataHub STAC collections without authentication, with an optional limit for result count. Use it to discover UK satellite data collections for further querying.
英国 EO DataHub の利用可能なコレクション一覧を返す（認証不要）。
例:「英国の衛星データコレクション」
Args:
limit: 返す件数（既定 20、最大 100）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.25.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does add useful behavioral context: authentication is not required and the limit has a maximum of 100. It still does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only/side-effect free or describe result format/pagination beyond the limit.
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 description is short and front-loads purpose, auth, and the limit. The 'Args:' block partly duplicates the schema and the example line is of unclear relevance for a list-only tool, but overall it is compact.
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 low-complexity list tool, the description covers purpose, auth, and the one parameter. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, it could do more to distinguish itself from uk_stac_search/stac_collections and clarify what a returned collection entry contains.
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 parameter meaning. It documents the sole parameter's purpose, default (20), and maximum (100), adding the max value that the schema lacks.
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 (返す) and resource (英国 EO DataHub の利用可能なコレクション一覧), with the provider scope distinguishing it from generic or other national collection tools. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling uk_stac_search or stac_collections, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. '認証不要' is a behavioral note, not routing guidance; it never says to use this instead of uk_stac_search when browsing UK collections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.