Mapbox MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get navigation route' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't address authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a real-time vs. cached service. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted language. Every word earns its place in communicating the essential function.

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 navigation API tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'navigation route' includes (distance, duration, steps, geometry), error handling, authentication needs, or how results differ from sibling tools. The minimal description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective agent use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain coordinate ordering (origin to destination), minimum/maximum points, or practical usage of the profile parameter. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('navigation route between two points'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'mapbox_directions_by_places', which likely serves a similar purpose with different input parameters.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'mapbox_directions_by_places', 'mapbox_geocoding', and 'mapbox_matrix' available, there's no indication of when this coordinate-based directions tool is preferred over place-based or matrix alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.