Retrieve configuration and health status for a specific external geospatial data source. Use it to verify source availability and settings before staging data.
Return one external source's configuration and health.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., fetching live health data), error behavior, or whether the operation is safe. More transparency is needed beyond the verb.
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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no extraneous words. It is concise without sacrificing the core message.
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 is adequate only for a very simple getter. It does not explain how to obtain a valid source_id, when to choose this tool over list_sources, or what 'health' includes. Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, more cross-referencing to siblings and parameter sourcing would make it complete.
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 only parameter, source_id, is documented as a bare string. The description adds only the term 'external source', which hints at the parameter's meaning but does not explain its format, where to obtain a valid identifier, or its relationship to list_sources. Minimal value 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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('one external source's configuration and health'), and explicitly says 'one', which differentiates it from list-level siblings like list_sources. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 phrase 'one external source' implies the tool is for single-source lookups rather than listing all sources, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives such as list_sources or health. Usage context is implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.