pota_park_infoRetrieve detailed park information by POTA reference code to plan activations or verify hunter logs.
Get detailed park information by POTA reference code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | Yes | Park reference code (e.g., US-0001, CA-5580, G-0001). |
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether unknown reference codes error or return empty, whether results are cached, or what the 'detailed' fields comprise.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient but so terse that it borders on under-specification relative to the six park-related siblings.
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 values need no explanation) and the lone parameter is fully documented, leaving the tool callable as described. What is missing is disambiguation from pota_park_stats and pota_park_activations, which is the main risk for an agent choosing among these tools.
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% and the single parameter already documents the reference format with three examples (US-0001, CA-5580, G-0001). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
A specific verb (Get) plus resource (detailed park information) keyed by POTA reference code, so the agent knows exactly what comes back in kind. However, it never distinguishes 'park information' from the closely named siblings pota_park_stats, pota_park_activations, and pota_park_leaderboard, which all also take a park reference.
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?
No when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the several park-scoped siblings. The only implied guidance is that a reference code is required, which the schema already makes mandatory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.