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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it describes the search logic ('filters collections by spatial extent before fetching items'), mentions a constraint ('max 50' when searching all collections), and explains the return format ('List of ItemMatch dicts with collection_id, item_id, temporal info'). It doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured: purpose statement first, then search logic, followed by parameter explanations, return format, and examples. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, spatial search logic), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, return format, and provides examples. The output schema handles return structure details, so the description appropriately focuses on operational context.

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 fully. It successfully adds meaning for all 3 parameters: explains lon/lat coordinate system and ranges (WGS84, -180 to 180, -90 to 90), clarifies collection_ids behavior ('If None, searches all'), and provides examples showing usage. This goes well beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Find items that cover a specific geographic point') and resources ('items', 'collections'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying geographic point-based search versus bounding box (find_collections_for_bbox) or general search (search_items).

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('searches across one or more collections for items whose bounding box contains the given coordinate') and mentions filtering behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools among siblings, though the context implies alternatives exist.

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