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. It discloses that the tool returns a list of CollectionSummary dicts, which is useful behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 appropriately sized: it starts with the core purpose, adds context as a shortcut, details the return content, and specifies the return format. Each sentence adds value, though the 'Returns:' section could be integrated more smoothly.

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns: List of CollectionSummary dicts'), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like performance or constraints.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate. It doesn't incorrectly mention parameters, maintaining clarity.

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: 'List all soil-related collections with depth information.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('soil-related collections'), and scope ('with depth information'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_collections' or 'get_land_cover_collections', which prevents a score of 5.

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 implied usage guidance by calling it a 'Shortcut for soil analysis' and listing the types of collections returned. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_collections' or 'discover_data_for_topic', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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