PostGIS MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation (getting information), it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes beyond the examples in parentheses, whether there are any limitations or constraints, what format the information returns in, or any error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 that states the core purpose. The parenthetical examples (area, length, dimensions, etc.) add useful context without verbosity. While it could be more specific, every element serves a purpose and there's no wasted text.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' actually includes beyond a few examples, doesn't specify the return format, and provides no context about limitations or error conditions. Given the complexity of geometric operations and the lack of structured documentation elsewhere, the description should do more to compensate.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'geometry_wkt' clearly documented as 'WKT formatında geometri' (geometry in WKT format). The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter information beyond what's already in the schema - it mentions geometry generally but doesn't clarify WKT format requirements or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose as 'get detailed information about geometry (area, length, dimensions, etc.)', which is clear but vague. It specifies the resource (geometry) and general type of information returned, but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'geometry-centroid' or 'raster-info' that also provide geometric information. The description is functional but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that also work with geometry (geometry-centroid, geometry-convex-hull, geometry-intersection, etc.), there's no indication of when this general 'info' tool is appropriate versus more specific geometric operations. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected.

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