soil_classificationGet the World Reference Base (WRB) soil classification at a coordinate from ISRIC SoilGrids — the most probable soil class (e.g. Cambisols, Podzols) plus the top 5 classes with probabilities. Keyless; may take several seconds to respond.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | Yes | Latitude in decimal degrees (-90 to 90). | |
| longitude | Yes | Longitude in decimal degrees (-180 to 180). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "latitude": 52.52,
+ "longitude": 13.405
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds meaningful behavioral context: keyless access and that the tool may take several seconds to respond. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent set expectations.
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?
Two sentences deliver all critical information upfront: what the tool does, the source, the output format, authentication, and performance. No extraneous words; every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple two-parameter lookup without output schema, the description covers the source, output (classes and probabilities), authentication (keyless), and a performance caveat. Missing are potential error conditions or precision limits, but overall it is adequately 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?
Input schema covers both parameters with 100% coverage, including descriptions for latitude and longitude ranges. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 retrieves the WRB soil classification from ISRIC SoilGrids, specifying the output (most probable class plus top 5 with probabilities). The verb 'Get' and resource naming are highly specific, making the purpose unmistakable even without sibling differentiation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_soil_properties or soil_properties. The description only explains what the tool does, leaving the agent without decision criteria for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve similar question-answering roles. The soil-specific tools are distinct but mixed with many general tools, causing confusion.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, list_soil_properties), others are compound nouns (suggest_questions, deep_research), and there is no uniform pattern like verb_noun across the set.
With 34 tools, the count is high but might be justified for a broad platform. However, the server name 'Soilgrids' suggests a focused soil data service, making the count feel excessive and unfocused.
For soil data, the three dedicated tools (list_soil_properties, soil_classification, soil_properties) cover basic needs but lack advanced queries. The general tools are extensive but introduce many gaps unrelated to soil, so overall completeness for the server's stated purpose is mediocre.