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 key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), supports filtering and search, returns lightweight summaries, and includes details like case-insensitive parameters and default limits. However, it lacks information on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by filtering details, return type, and structured sections for Args, Returns, and Example. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, usage, parameters, return values (though output schema exists, it clarifies the content), and provides examples. This covers all necessary aspects for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 significant meaning beyond the schema: explains 'theme' with specific aliases and case-insensitivity, 'keyword' with search scope and case-insensitivity, and 'limit' with range and default. This fully documents all three parameters, providing clear semantics and usage 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 tool's purpose: 'List available data collections in the OpenLandMap catalog.' It specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'data collections,' and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_soil_collections' or 'search_items' by focusing on catalog browsing with filtering capabilities.

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 clear context for usage: 'Supports filtering by thematic category and keyword search in title/description. Returns lightweight summaries for browsing.' It implies when to use this tool (for browsing collections with filters) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'search_items' for more detailed searches.

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