pota_location_parksRetrieve all Parks on the Air (POTA) parks for a specified state, province, or country using its location code.
List all POTA parks in a state, province, or country.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | Yes | Location code (e.g., US-ID for Idaho, CA-ON for Ontario, G for England). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without help from the description. The description adds only the word 'all', which hints at potentially unbounded result sets but never states pagination, result size, or truncation behavior — useful context that is missing.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, ending with the scope. Nothing redundant and nothing buried.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained, and the single required parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description is nearly complete for this simple tool; the only real gap is not distinguishing region-based listing from the proximity-based sibling.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's own description gives example codes (US-ID, CA-ON, G). The description adds a small amount by confirming country-level codes are valid and not just state/province, but it provides no format rules, delimiters, or case sensitivity. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.
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 (List), resource (POTA parks), and scope (state, province, or country), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling pota_nearby_parks, which is the obvious alternative when the user's criterion is proximity rather than a named region.
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?
Usage is implied: call this when you have a location code and want the parks in that region. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of pota_nearby_parks for geographic-radius searches, leaving the agent to infer which of the two location-based tools to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.