Verify OpenStreetMap edits by re-fetching all elements recorded in an applied proposal receipt, confirming the changes were successfully applied.
Re-fetch every element recorded in an applied proposal receipt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proposal_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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the re-fetch behavior but does not disclose details such as what happens when an element is missing, whether errors are returned per element, or any rate/scale considerations. No contradiction with annotations.
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 sentence with no filler, and the core action 'Re-fetch every element' is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter 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?
The tool is simple, has a strong annotation set, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to cover return values. However, it lacks usage guidance and clear parameter provenance, leaving the agent to infer the connection between proposal_id and an 'applied proposal receipt'. It is minimally adequate but not complete.
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 does not mention proposal_id directly, only implying that it identifies an applied proposal receipt; it omits how to obtain it, whether it is a string ID from a previous apply call, or any expected format.
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 uses a specific verb (re-fetch) and a concrete resource (every element recorded in an applied proposal receipt), making the tool's operation clear. It also differentiates this tool from sibling getters like get_osm_node/way/relation because it operates at the level of an entire proposal receipt.
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 word 'applied' implies this is meant for post-application verification, but the description never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives. It does not name a sibling such as apply_osm_edit or explain when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.