List OpenWISP locations in GeoJSON format for maps and geospatial analysis. Filter by organization ID or slug to narrow results.
[Category: Geo & Locations] List locations in GeoJSON format. (HTTP GET /api/v1/controller/location/geojson/)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| organization_id | No | Organization ID filter | |
| organization_slug | No | Organization slug filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the response is paginated, whether it can be large, what the GeoJSON object contains, or any permission requirement. The HTTP GET hint is a small positive but is mostly restating the read nature of the call.
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 a single compact sentence and is front-loaded with the category and core action. It is not bloated, though the parenthetical HTTP route is somewhat redundant for an agent that already knows this is a tool call.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the return shape (GeoJSON FeatureCollection or similar), pagination or size concerns, and sibling differentiation. It does none of these, leaving an agent uncertain how this differs from the non-GeoJSON list tool.
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%, so the two filter parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline for high coverage.
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 states a specific verb+resource ('List locations') and names the output format (GeoJSON), which is more specific than the sibling openwisp_list_locations. However, it does not explain how it differs from openwisp_list_locations beyond 'GeoJSON format', leaving the agent to guess whether that is a render format, a file download, or a distinct dataset.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus openwisp_list_locations, the obvious sibling. The description gives no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.