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 that results are 'sorted by start date' and returns 'List of TemporalSlice dicts,' which adds behavioral context beyond basic listing. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a tool that likely accesses datasets.

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 a clear purpose statement, adds context in a second sentence, then provides Args, Returns, and Example sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose content.

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 (listing items with temporal focus), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns' section), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, return format, and includes an example. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling, which could be useful given the data context.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'collection_id' as 'Collection identifier,' and the example provides a concrete value. With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates by adding meaning not in the schema. The parameter is straightforward, so no deeper semantics are needed.

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 items in a collection organized chronologically.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('items in a collection'), and organizational method ('chronologically'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_items' or 'list_collections' beyond mentioning temporal organization.

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 stating it's 'useful for understanding data availability and update frequency.' This suggests when to use it, but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'search_items' (which might filter) or 'list_collections' (which lists collections, not items). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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