Fetch published public neighbourhood outlines for a city or optional district; simplified by the source helper, not cadastral boundaries.
Get published public neighbourhood outlines, simplified by the source helper; not cadastral boundaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | tehran | |
| district | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| schema_version | No | 1.0 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds data-provenance context ('published public', 'simplified by the source helper') and a scope limitation ('not cadastral boundaries'), which is useful but not rich.
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?
A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and immediately adding a critical scope exclusion. Every clause earns its place.
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?
The description explains what the tool returns and its data limitations but says nothing about how to use the city or district parameters, despite 0% schema description coverage. For a tool with non-trivial invocation options, this leaves a significant gap.
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 0%, and the description never mentions the two parameters (city, district) or their defaults, formats, or meanings. It only implies that some location filtering exists via the resource name.
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 (Get) and resource (public neighbourhood outlines), and distinguishes the data type from cadastral boundaries. It does not name a sibling tool or explicitly route the agent, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Provides a negative scope ('not cadastral boundaries') but no positive when-to-use guidance, no alternatives among the many dv_* siblings, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer the intended context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.