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 it returns 'every asset' with detailed metadata, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks information on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, which are important 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 well-structured with a purpose statement, detailed return info, parameter definitions, and an example. It is front-loaded with the core functionality. Some sentences could be more concise, but overall it is efficient with minimal waste.

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 a good job explaining the tool's purpose, parameters, and return format (dict mapping asset keys to AssetInfo dicts). It includes an example, which adds clarity. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or performance expectations.

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 and defines the two parameters ('collection_id: Collection identifier', 'item_id: Item identifier'), adding clear meaning beyond the bare schema. This adequately covers both parameters, though it could provide more context on format or examples.

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 verb ('List all assets') and resource ('of a specific item'), specifying it returns 'complete metadata' including data layers, thumbnails, style files with URLs, MIME types, file sizes, and roles. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_data_assets' (which likely lists assets across items) by focusing on a single item.

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 needing all assets for a specific item, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_visualization_assets' or 'get_asset_download_info'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity in context.

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