PostGIS MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic function. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether the polygon persists somewhere, what happens with invalid coordinates, or any error conditions. For a geometry creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Turkish that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward geometry creation tool.

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 geometry creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after polygon creation, whether the result is stored or returned, what format the output takes, or any behavioral aspects. Given the complexity of spatial operations and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more context.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained coordinate format expectations or SRID implications.

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 action ('oluştur' - create) and the resource ('poligon geometrisi' - polygon geometry) from a coordinate array. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-point' or 'create-linestring' by specifying polygon creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other geometry creation tools.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-buffer' or 'create-linestring'. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed for polygon creation.

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