Lists Mapbox tilesets owned by a user, with optional filtering by raster or vector type and a limit on results.
List Mapbox tilesets owned by a user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by tileset type | |
| limit | No | Max tilesets to return (max: 500) | |
| username | Yes | Mapbox username | |
| access_token | Yes | Mapbox access token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.9v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ownership scope, but it does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or that an access token is required beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate for a simple list tool, though it leaves some potentially useful context unstated.
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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and complete safety annotations, the description is mostly sufficient: it states that tilesets are listed and scoped to a user. The remaining gaps, such as return format and pagination, are minor for this tool's complexity.
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 100%, and all four parameters are documented in the schema, including the type enum and limit maximum. The description only echoes the username ownership scope ('owned by a user') and adds no syntax or format details beyond the 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 names a specific verb and resource: list Mapbox tilesets. It also adds the ownership scope ('owned by a user'), so the agent knows this is not a global tileset listing. It does not need to distinguish from a close sibling because no other tileset tool appears in the sibling list.
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 description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The ownership phrase implies the use case, but the agent must infer it rather than being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.