Convert coordinate pairs between EPSG coordinate systems (max 1000 points).
points: [[x, y], ...] in from_epsg axis order (lon/lat for EPSG:4326).
Returns JSON: {"points": [[x, y], ...], "from_epsg": ..., "to_epsg": ...}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| points | Yes | ||
| to_epsg | Yes | ||
| from_epsg | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the 1000-point limit, axis order dependence, and return format. However, it lacks details on error handling for invalid EPSG codes or points exceeding the limit. Overall, key behavioral traits are covered.
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 extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, points format, and return structure. It is front-loaded with the core action and limit. No extraneous words.
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 simplicity (3 parameters, no enums, no output schema) and the existence of output schema (implied by context), the description covers essential aspects: usage context, limit, axis order, and return shape. Missing error details but sufficient for basic usage.
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 add meaning. It explains the points parameter format ([[x, y], ...]) and the axis order dependency, which the schema does not. The EPSG codes are integers but no further details on valid values. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
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 converts coordinate pairs between EPSG coordinate systems with a 1000-point limit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like reproject_geojson which handle GeoJSON objects. The verb 'convert' and resource 'coordinate pairs' are specific.
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 indicates using this tool for point conversions between EPSG systems and notes the axis order convention, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like reproject_geojson or epsg_suggest. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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.
Many assess_* composite tools (datacenter, ev_charging, renewable, telecom, due_diligence) share the same building blocks of grid proximity, land cover, and terrain, making their boundaries fuzzy. assess_property_hazard_x402 also duplicates assess_property_hazard with only a payment-method difference, and bundle_* tools intentionally overlap with the free primitives they replace.
There is a mix of verb_noun tools (query_features, geocode_address), noun-first geometry tools (centroids_geojson, envelope_geojson), and inconsistent _geojson suffix usage (buffer_geojson, fix_geometry, geometry_stats). The assess_* and bundle_* prefixes offer some grouping, but no single naming pattern is followed across the set.
With 85 tools, the surface is extreme for an MCP server and far exceeds the typical well-scoped 3-15 range. Many tools are convenience bundles or variants that could be consolidated, making the count a significant usability burden.
The toolkit covers a broad range of GIS tasks: format conversions, GeoJSON analysis, FeatureServer query/inspection, geocoding, site assessment, and sharing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no Excel-to-GeoJSON, no FeatureServer update/delete), but most missing functionality can be worked around by chaining existing tools.