Fetch an OpenStreetMap way by ID and return its complete data, including nodes and tags, for validation and editing tasks.
Get an OSM way by ID.
Args: way_id: The ID of the way to retrieve
Returns: Dictionary containing way data including nodes and tags
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| way_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 establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the returned dictionary includes nodes and tags, which is a small behavioral detail beyond annotations, but it does not disclose error behavior, not-found handling, or any API-specific quirks. This is adequate but not rich.
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 and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, followed by tidy Args and Returns sections. No filler or redundant background information appears, and the structure makes the single parameter and return type easy to scan.
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 one-parameter, read-only lookup tool, this is nearly complete. The output schema covers return structure, annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the description states what data is included. The main missing piece is any mention of behavior for invalid or nonexistent way IDs, but overall an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.
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 carry parameter meaning. It says way_id is 'the ID of the way to retrieve,' which clarifies the integer's referent but does little more than restate the parameter name. No format, example, range, or source hint is provided, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get an OSM way by ID.' This clearly identifies the operation and the OSM element type, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_osm_node and get_osm_relation even without naming them. The returns line adds that the result includes nodes and tags, further narrowing the purpose.
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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling get_osm_node or get_osm_relation, nor any conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. The only usage signal is the implicit need for a way ID, which is already obvious from the parameter name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.