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 for behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format ('TemporalStats dict with dates, counts, and year distribution') and gives an example, but doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with a clear purpose statement, bullet-point-like output details, labeled argument and return sections, and a practical example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 (statistical analysis), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains what the tool does and shows basic usage, but lacks details about the return structure, error handling, performance, and when to use versus alternatives. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally elaborate more on the 'TemporalStats dict' format.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adds essential meaning by explaining that 'collection_id' is a 'Collection identifier' and providing a concrete example ('evi_mod13q1.tmwm.inpaint'). This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation, though it doesn't elaborate on 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 tool's purpose: 'Get temporal statistics for a collection' with specific outputs listed (earliest/latest dates, total item count, distribution by year, estimated update frequency). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_data_timeline' or 'list_items_temporal' by focusing on statistical summaries rather than raw data listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_data_timeline', 'list_items_temporal', and 'get_collection_spatial_coverage', there's no indication of when statistical summaries are preferred over raw temporal listings or when to choose temporal versus spatial analysis. The example shows usage but doesn't provide contextual decision criteria.

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