Analyze a GPX track or route to obtain distance, elevation, endpoints, and fixed-distance sectors with grade and bearing. No external writes needed.
Analyze a GPX track or route without external writes. Returns distance, elevation, endpoints and compact fixed-distance sectors with coordinates, grade and bearing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpxXml | Yes | Complete GPX XML document | |
| segmentDistanceKm | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating 'without external writes' and enumerating the return fields, giving the agent a clear expectation of the output even without an output schema. No contradiction with annotations.
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 two sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately states outputs, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return content (distance, elevation, endpoints, sectors). It does not describe error handling or edge cases, but for a read-only analysis tool with annotations already covering safety, this is reasonably complete.
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 coverage is 50% (only gpxXml has a description). The description's mention of 'compact fixed-distance sectors' implicitly relates to segmentDistanceKm, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter's role or range. The description partially compensates for the missing schema description but could be more direct.
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 uses a specific verb 'Analyze' and resource 'GPX track or route', and lists concrete outputs (distance, elevation, endpoints, sectors with coordinates, grade, bearing). It distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools by focusing specifically on GPX routes and emphasizing read-only behavior ('without external writes').
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 for GPX route analysis but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_route_weather or simulate_ultra_route. It lacks exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to the correct sibling, leaving the selection to inference from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.