OpenLandMap MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool finds 'related collections' and returns a 'List of RelatedCollection dicts with relation type,' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or how 'theme' and 'temporal overlap' are defined. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to fully understand its behavior.

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, starting with the purpose, followed by usage guidelines, args, returns, and an example. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return values are documented), no annotations, and a simple input schema with one parameter, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and usage but lacks behavioral details like error cases or performance considerations, which are important for a discovery tool in a data catalog 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?

The description adds meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'collection_id' is a 'Collection identifier to find relations for,' clarifying its role. With only one parameter and no schema description, this compensation is adequate, though it could provide more detail on format or 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 tool's purpose: 'Find collections related by theme or temporal overlap.' It specifies the verb ('find') and resource ('collections') with a clear scope ('related by theme or temporal overlap'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_overlapping_datasets' or 'compare_collections,' which might have similar purposes.

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 for usage: 'Useful for discovering complementary datasets (e.g., finding climate data to correlate with vegetation indices).' This gives a practical scenario, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives among siblings like 'find_overlapping_datasets' or 'compare_collections,' which could be relevant for overlapping data.

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