OpenLandMap MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: case-insensitive input with underscores for spaces, the return format (dict with bbox and region name), and error handling (returns error with list of available regions if not found). It lacks details on rate limits or authentication needs, but covers essential 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, starting with the core purpose, followed by usage context, parameter details, return values, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter details, return format, error handling, and includes an example, providing all necessary information for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides comprehensive parameter semantics: explains what 'region_name' represents, gives formatting rules (case-insensitive, underscores for spaces), and lists concrete examples ('brazil', 'goias', etc.), adding significant value beyond the basic schema.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('WGS84 bounding box for a named region'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on bounding box retrieval for geographic regions, unlike other tools that handle data discovery, collection queries, or snippet building.

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 when to use this tool ('Useful for building spatial queries') and lists supported region types (countries, Brazilian states, etc.). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for similar spatial operations.

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