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 key behavioral traits: the tool performs a read operation (implied by 'Return'), converts data to GeoJSON, and strips STAC-specific fields. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 clear sections for Args, Returns, and an Example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure enhances readability for an AI agent, making it efficiently informative.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the transformation to GeoJSON and providing an example. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential errors or the tool's read-only nature. For a 2-parameter tool with low schema coverage, it covers essentials but has minor gaps.

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 explicitly lists both parameters ('collection_id' and 'item_id') with brief explanations, and the example provides concrete usage, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema. This fully addresses the parameter documentation gap.

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 ('Return a STAC item as a pure GeoJSON Feature'), identifies the resource (STAC item), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_item_detail' by emphasizing the GeoJSON conversion and stripping of STAC-specific fields. The phrase 'Ready for use in any GIS system, web map, or geospatial tool' further clarifies the output's utility.

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 a standardized GeoJSON format is needed, as opposed to raw STAC data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_item_detail' or 'list_assets_for_item'. It provides context ('Strips STAC-specific fields') but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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