Lists available UK EO DataHub STAC collections without authentication, enabling discovery of British satellite data collections. Use the limit parameter to control how many collections are returned.
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.
v0.41.4Input schema / properties / limit / titleRemoved value: -"Limit"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"uk_stac_collectionsArguments"v0.25.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose that no authentication is needed. It does not say anything about result ordering, pagination, or whether the response is a flat list of names or full collection metadata.
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?
Two short blocks, front-loaded with purpose then the argument, with zero filler. The example phrase is somewhat redundant with the purpose sentence but helps disambiguate phrasing.
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?
A single-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema: the purpose, the auth status, and the limit range are all covered. Only the return-value shape is left implicit, which is a minor gap for a simple listing.
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%, so the description must compensate: it does, giving the default (20) and a maximum (100) that the schema does not express. It does not explain what happens if limit exceeds 100 or is negative.
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 collections from the UK EO DataHub. Among siblings like uk_stac_search and stac_collections, the UK/EO DataHub scoping is stated, though it never explicitly contrasts with uk_stac_search (search vs. collection listing).
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 query ('UK satellite data collections') gives an implied use case, and 'no authentication required' removes a common precondition. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus uk_stac_search or the generic stac_collections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.