Retrieve an OpenStreetMap node by its ID to obtain its coordinates and tags. Use this when you need to look up or validate a specific node's details.
Get an OSM node by ID.
Args: node_id: The ID of the node to retrieve
Returns: Dictionary containing node data including coordinates and tags
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a useful but limited return-shape note ('Dictionary containing node data including coordinates and tags') without discussing error handling or external data volatility.
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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses clear Args/Returns sections with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple single-parameter read-only tool with output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, parameter, and return content. It does not mention edge cases like nonexistent node IDs, but the operation is simple enough that this is not a major gap.
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%, so the description must compensate. It provides a basic semantic for node_id ('The ID of the node to retrieve'), but this mostly restates the property name and does not add constraints, examples, or format guidance beyond the integer type in 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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('OSM node'), and a precise selection mechanism ('by ID'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_osm_way and get_osm_relation through the explicit resource type.
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 'by ID' phrasing clearly conveys that this tool is for retrieving a node when its ID is known, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as search_osm_elements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.