MapMap

elevation

Sample terrain elevation. Provide points (a bare list of coordinates) for point elevation, or encoded_polyline (optionally with resample_distance_m) for an along-route profile — not both. Returns one sample per point/resampled point in order; elevation_m is null wherever the engine's DEM tile set has no coverage at that point (never a guess). The encoded_polyline form also returns each sample's resampled lat/lon and cumulative range_km from the start.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`points`	No	Points to sample. Provide this or `encoded_polyline`, not both.
`encoded_polyline`	No	A route as a Google encoded polyline with six digits of precision. Provide this or `points`, not both.
`resample_distance_m`	No	Resamples `encoded_polyline` at this spacing in metres before sampling height (ignored for `points`).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`samples`	Yes	One sample per input point (or per resampled shape point, in the `encoded_polyline` form), in order.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states that one sample is returned per input point in order, that `elevation_m` is null for missing DEM coverage 'never a guess,' and that polyline inputs additionally return resampled lat/lon and cumulative `range_km`. This is unusually honest and useful behavioral detail for an unannotated tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three tightly written sentences cover the operation, the two input modes, mutual exclusivity, output ordering, missing-data behavior, and polyline-specific outputs. The high-level purpose is front-loaded, and every clause adds information. There is no filler or repetition of schema text.

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?

The description is complete for a terrain sampling tool: it covers both input modes, the output contract, missing-data semantics, and extra polyline outputs, while the output schema handles return fields. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter, including mutual exclusivity and the meaning of `resample_distance_m`. The description adds a small amount of relational context by grouping the parameters into 'point elevation' and 'along-route profile,' but it does not substantially extend what the schema already provides.

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 opens with the exact verb and resource: 'Sample terrain elevation.' It immediately distinguishes the tool's two modes (point sampling and along-route profile), which sets it apart from nearby routing and geospatial analysis tools. The phrasing is specific enough that an agent can match the tool to elevation queries without inspecting the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly instructs when to provide `points` versus `encoded_polyline` and explicitly warns 'not both.' It also notes that `resample_distance_m` only applies to polyline input. It does not mention alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, but the mode-selection guidance gives agents a clear operational context.

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

All MapMap tools Inspect

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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct action and resource pair, and descriptions are explicit about which tool fits which scenario. The closest overlaps—plan_ev_route vs cheapest_charging_along_route, and route vs plan_day vs order_stops vs optimise_routes—are mitigated by clear guidance, so an agent can usually pick correctly.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (plan_ev_route, set_palette, list_style_layers) with a consistent geo_ prefix for geometry helpers. Minor deviations like elevation, route, and matrix are short and readable but break the strict verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 39 tools, this surface is well past the 25+ threshold and feels heavy even for a broad mapping platform. The set spans routing, geocoding, places, styles, EV/fuel, telematics, usage, and feedback, which would be easier for an agent to navigate if split into smaller domain-focused servers.

Completeness4/5

For the stated breadth, coverage is strong: routing, multi-stop planning, VRP, EV/fuel detours, geocoding, places, geometry, style lifecycle, and telematics all have workable primary paths. Minor gaps like no style deletion, no route alternatives, and no batch geocoding are present but do not create dead ends for core workflows.

Resources

Need Help?