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 AssetInfo dicts with visualization roles, which adds behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't cover other traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are important for a tool with no annotations. The description doesn't contradict any annotations, as none exist.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the purpose, followed by usage context, parameters, returns, and an example. Each sentence adds value, such as explaining the assets' use in GIS applications. However, the example could be more concise, and some redundancy exists in repeating parameter names without additional insight.

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 an output schema (true), the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it adequately covers the purpose and usage. With no annotations and low schema coverage, it adds context like the types of assets and their applications. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential errors or prerequisites, but the presence of an output schema mitigates some 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 lists the parameters (collection_id, item_id) and provides an example, but doesn't explain their semantics, such as what constitutes a valid identifier or format. The example helps but doesn't fully clarify parameter meaning, leaving gaps in understanding beyond the basic schema.

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 visualization-related assets: thumbnails, QML, SLD styles.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('visualization-related assets'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_all_data_assets' or 'list_assets_for_item' by focusing on visualization-specific assets. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'get_asset_download_info', which might overlap in functionality.

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 context by stating 'Returns assets useful for previewing and styling the data in GIS applications like QGIS (QML) or WMS services (SLD).' This suggests when to use it—for GIS visualization tasks. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as using 'get_all_data_assets' for non-visualization assets, leaving some ambiguity.

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