Get elevation for up to 100 points in one call. Pass a list of objects: [{"lat":…,"lon":…,"dataset_id":…}, …] Available on all tiers including Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | Yes | List of point dicts with lat, lon, dataset_id. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 100-point limit and input format but does not mention read-only behavior, error handling, or output structure. The 'get' verb implies read-only, and an output schema exists, but behavioral disclosure is minimal.
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?
Two concise sentences that immediately state the primary purpose and then give the necessary input format. No wasted words, well front-loaded.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose, input shape, batch limit, and tier availability. Since an output schema exists, not describing return fields is acceptable. It doesn't address edge cases like exceeding 100 points, but the core usage is clear.
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 defines 'queries' as a list of point dicts with lat, lon, dataset_id. The description adds a concrete JSON example and the 100-point cap, providing meaning beyond the schema's basic description.
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's function: 'Get elevation for up to 100 points in one call.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the batch limitation distinguishes it from sibling LP_Get_Elevation, which likely handles a single point.
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?
'In one call' implies use for multiple elevations in a single request, and 'Available on all tiers including Free' provides access context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct combination of variable (elevation, slope, terrain) and output type (point, batch, stats, chart, 3D, map), making selection unambiguous. The batch vs single-point tools are clearly differentiated by their input and purpose.
Eight of nine tools follow the consistent LP_Get_<Variable>_<OutputType> pattern, making the set predictable. The lone list_datasets deviates from this convention, creating a minor inconsistency.
With 9 tools, the server covers a focused domain (elevation, slope, terrain) without unnecessary bloat. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, and the count is well within the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool set is missing a single-point or batch slope query (e.g., LP_Get_Slope) while elevation has both single and batch versions. This asymmetry means agents cannot directly retrieve slope at a coordinate without using statistical aggregates, a notable gap.