List named map regions with anchor coordinates, area, and node count, optionally filtering to regions that contain a specified resource.
Named map regions with anchor coordinate, area and node count; resource= keeps regions holding it.
Names are advisory (boundaries about 256 m); any name works as a region: selector. The anchor provably lies inside the region.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / properties / resource / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / resource / titleRemoved value: -"Resource"Input schema / properties / resource / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Input schema / properties / with_resourceRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null,
- "description": "retired -- write resource= instead",
- "title": "With Resource"
-}Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"list_regionsArguments"Input schema / properties / resourceAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Resource"
+}Input schema / properties / with_resource / descriptionAdded value: +"retired -- write resource= instead"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: region names are advisory with roughly 256 m boundaries, and the anchor is guaranteed to lie inside the region.
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 definition is compact and front-loads the core output description before the filter behavior and the two caveats. Every sentence adds useful information, with no repetition or filler.
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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, the filter behavior, naming caveats, and the anchor guarantee. It could be slightly more complete with ordering or pagination details, but the essentials are present.
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 carry the burden for the single optional parameter. It does so by explaining that `resource=` keeps only regions containing that resource, which gives the parameter clear filtering semantics beyond the bare string/null schema.
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 clearly identifies the resource as named map regions and lists the returned attributes: anchor coordinate, area, and node count. It also mentions the resource filter, but does not explicitly differentiate this tool from nearby siblings such as show_on_map, describe_location, or factory_map.
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?
It explains the semantics of the `resource=` filter, but gives no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The note about `region:<name>` selectors is useful context, yet it is not framed as usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.