Skip to main content
Glama

gisgp

by io.github.uponex

estimate_cost

FREE — quote a paid tool's cost WITHOUT executing it or charging the wallet (call this before assess_property_hazard etc.). units = candidate/item count for per-unit-priced tools (currently only rank_hazard_safe_sites — pass the number of candidates you intend to submit); ignored (treated as 1) for every flat-priced tool. Returns JSON: {ok, tool_name, units, credits, eur_estimate} for credits-wallet tools; for assess_property_hazard_x402 (paid on-chain via x402, not the credits wallet) returns {ok, tool_name, units, payment, price_usd} instead; or {ok: false, error} for an unknown/free tool name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
unitsNo
tool_nameYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / units
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 1,
+  "title": "Units",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: it is free, does not execute the tool, and returns different JSON structures based on payment type. Covers edge cases like x402 pricing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is thorough but slightly lengthy. However, it is well-structured with front-loaded key info and each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy in explaining both response types.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists (has output schema: true), the description explains return formats for both credits-wallet and x402 tools. It covers all necessary information for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'tool_name' is the tool to estimate, 'units' is for per-unit tools and defaults to 1, and how units are handled for flat-priced tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool estimates cost of a paid tool without executing it. It specifies the verb 'quote' and resource 'cost', and distinguishes from siblings by being free and used for cost estimation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'call this before assess_property_hazard etc.' and explains the units parameter for per-unit tools. Provides clear guidance on when to use and how parameters work.

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

All gisgp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources