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 'Shows when data is available' and returns a 'DataTimeline dict with entries sorted chronologically', but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context, args, returns, and an example—all in a compact format with no wasted sentences. Each section adds value, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basics well but lacks depth. It explains what the tool does and provides an example, but without annotations or output schema, it misses details on behavioral traits like safety or response structure, leaving some contextual gaps for an AI agent.

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. It adds meaningful context by specifying 'collection_ids: List of collection IDs (1-10)', clarifying the parameter's purpose and constraints (e.g., list size limit), which goes beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail the format or examples of collection IDs beyond the provided example.

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 ('Generate a structured timeline') and resources ('data availability across collections'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_collection_temporal_stats' or 'list_items_temporal' by focusing on availability planning rather than statistical summaries or item listings.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool ('useful for planning multi-temporal or multi-variable analyses'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'compare_collections' or 'discover_data_for_topic', which might serve related purposes.

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