Sample ground elevation in meters at lat/lon. Requires a subscription API key; shares REST quota. Not for navigation or safety-critical use.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | Latitude in decimal degrees. | |
| lon | Yes | Longitude in decimal degrees. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses important behavioral context: authentication requirements, shared REST quota rate implications, and output units in meters. It also adds a safety caveat. This is substantial value over the structured metadata alone.
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 three short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by essential prerequisites and usage caveats. 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 read-only point-elevation tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, in what unit, under what authentication and quota constraints, and warns about inappropriate uses. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 input schema already fully documents both parameters with names, ranges, and descriptions, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond saying 'at lat/lon.' With 100% schema coverage, a 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 that the tool samples ground elevation in meters at a lat/lon coordinate, with a specific verb and resource. This sets it apart from sibling tools like basemap_catalog, find_features, overpass_query, and service_status, which serve different geographic or status-related purposes.
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 gives clear usage context: it requires a subscription API key, shares REST quota, and explicitly warns against navigation or safety-critical use. It does not mention alternative sibling tools by name, so it stops short of a 5, but the guidance is concrete and actionable.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct: basemap_catalog, elevation, and service_status each target unique resources, while find_features and overpass_query both touch OSM data but are differentiated by abstraction level (preset categories in a small bbox vs. raw Overpass QL). Agents could still hesitate between the two OSM search tools, so not a perfect 5.
All names are lowercase snake_case, but they don't follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: most are noun phrases (elevation, overpass_query, service_status) and only find_features uses a verb. This is readable but stylistically mixed.
Five tools is a well-scoped set for a geospatial API: catalog, elevation, feature search, raw Overpass query, and service status. Each tool has a clear role and none feel redundant or excessive.
The core read-only geospatial workflows are covered: discover basemaps, sample elevation, search OSM features, run arbitrary Overpass queries, and check data/service state. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct basemap tile fetching or geocoding/reverse-geocoding), but agents can work around these with Overpass and the catalog details.