OpenLandMap MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the search behavior ('Searches all collections for spatial overlap') and output format ('List of CollectionMatch dicts'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. It adds basic context but misses key operational traits.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: spatial search scope, parameter semantics, return format, and a concrete example. No wasted words, and the example efficiently illustrates usage.

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?

Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is largely complete. It explains inputs and outputs sufficiently, though behavioral aspects like error cases or performance limits are omitted. For a search tool with structured return data, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 clearly explains both parameters: 'bbox' (WGS84 format with coordinate order) and 'theme' (optional filter with examples like 'soil', 'vegetation'). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail validation rules or theme constraints.

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 specific action ('Find collections whose spatial extent intersects a bounding box') and resource ('collections'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'find_items_by_point' (point-based) and 'list_collections' (unfiltered listing). The verb 'find' with spatial intersection is precise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for spatial searches with optional theme filtering, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'find_overlapping_datasets' or theme-specific tools (e.g., 'get_soil_collections'). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving context partially implied.

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