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. It discloses the return structure (SpatialCoverage dict with specific fields) and includes an example, which adds behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance characteristics, or authentication requirements.

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 efficiently structured: purpose statement, detailed return values, parameter explanation, return structure, and an example—all in four concise sentences. Each sentence adds value with zero wasted text.

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?

For a single-parameter read operation with no annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and includes an example. However, it lacks information on error cases or rate limits, which would be helpful given the absence of structured metadata.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter ('collection_id: Collection identifier') and providing an example with a concrete value. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints or validation rules.

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 ('Get the full spatial coverage details') and resource ('of a collection'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_collection_schema' or 'get_collection_temporal_stats'. It precisely identifies what information is retrieved (bounding box, GeoJSON polygon, ground sample distance, CRS).

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 when spatial coverage details are needed for a specific collection, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_collections_for_bbox' or 'get_bbox_for_region'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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