Skip to main content
Glama

Get Elevation Profile

assetfy_get_elevation_profile
Read-onlyIdempotent

Elevation in m above NHN at up to 20 points, or — with as_profile true — a terrain section (Geländeschnitt) along the line through them: samples every step_m metres with distance and elevation, total ascent and descent, and the steepest gradient in %. For questions like "Wie verläuft das Gelände von der Straße bis zum Ende des Grundstücks?", "Wie steil wird die Zufahrt?", "Wie hoch liegt dieser Punkt?". The line may be up to 1,000 m long and all points must lie within 496 m of each other and in one Bundesland. Heights come from the official DGM1 (1 m terrain model) of the state — live from the state web service or from tiles Assetfy imported; the result names the source, attribution and licence. Covered: every state except Bremen and Saarland.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "points": "<points>"
    },
    "name": "assetfy_get_elevation_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pointsYesPoints in WGS84, in the order of the line.
step_mNoSampling distance along the profile in m. Default 5; raised automatically so a profile has at most 200 samples.
as_profileNotrue: terrain section along the line through the points (needs at least 2). false (default): elevation at each point.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial context: geometric limits (line up to 1,000 m, points within 496 m, one Bundesland), the data source (official DGM1 1 m model, live service or imported tiles), that the result carries source/attribution/licence, and explicit coverage gaps (no Bremen or Saarland).

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?

Front-loaded with the core output ('Elevation in m above NHN...') followed by mode, examples, constraints, and provenance. Dense but organized; the three example queries and the German term are justified, though the description is on the long side for a 3-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates fully: it explains return content (source, attribution, licence, distance, elevation, ascent/descent, gradient), input constraints, auto-raising of step_m, and geographic coverage. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description ties each parameter to observable behavior: step_m drives sampling spacing, as_profile selects the section mode and yields distance, elevation, total ascent/descent, and steepest gradient. It adds meaning beyond the terse schema fields without contradicting them.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Elevation in m above NHN at up to 20 points') and clearly separates its two modes (point sampling vs. terrain section via as_profile). It is very clear about what it computes, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling assetfy_get_terrain, which likely covers the single/point case, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

Natural-language example questions ('Wie verläuft das Gelände...', 'Wie steil wird die Zufahrt?', 'Wie hoch liegt dieser Punkt?') give clear trigger context for invoking it. However it names no alternative tool or exclusion, so the agent must infer when to prefer assetfy_get_terrain or assetfy_get_parcel_profile instead.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.