foundrynet-geo
Server Details
x402-gated geocoding + distance gateway. Tools: geocode, distance.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 2.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct geospatial operation: distance calculation, facility risk analysis, and geocoding. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names use a consistent lowercase_snake_case pattern with simple verb-like names (distance, facility_risk, geocode) that clearly describe their function.
With 3 tools, the set is concise and well-scoped for a geospatial utility. Each tool covers a fundamental need without being excessive or insufficient.
The core geo operations (geocoding, distance, risk) are covered. A reverse geocode tool is missing but the set is adequate for most common use cases.
Available Tools
3 toolsdistanceCInspect
Distance + duration estimate between two places
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | destination address | |
| from | Yes | origin address | |
| api_key | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states what it returns (distance and duration) but no disclosure of API constraints, error behavior, or limits. Minimal behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and result. Efficient but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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?
Without annotations or output schema, description is too minimal. Lacks details on return format, error handling, parameter constraints (api_key), and units. Insufficient for an agent to fully understand 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 covers 67% of parameters (from, to) with descriptions. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; does not clarify units, address format, or the undocumented 'api_key' parameter.
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?
Description clearly states verb ('estimate') and resource ('distance + duration between two places'). Distinguishes from sibling 'geocode' which converts addresses to coordinates, not travel metrics.
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?
No guidance on when to use vs alternatives. Does not mention that this tool is for travel estimation, not geocoding. No exclusions or prerequisites provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
facility_riskBInspect
Facility location risk profile (weather threats + regulatory activity) for any address
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | facility / site address to assess | |
| api_key | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions the risk categories (weather threats, regulatory activity) but omits details on whether the tool is read-only, required authentication (api_key parameter present but not explained), rate limits, error behavior, or output structure.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the key information.
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 complexity (risk assessment with 2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It lacks details on input format, output fields, failure modes, and usage constraints, leaving the agent with significant gaps.
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 coverage is 50% (only address has a description). The description does not add meaning to the api_key parameter or clarify address formatting. It fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 purpose: generating a facility location risk profile covering weather threats and regulatory activity for any address. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like distance and geocode.
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 implies usage for risk assessment but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. There is no discussion of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
geocodeCInspect
Geocode an address ↔ lat/lng (Census + Nominatim)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | No | ||
| lng | No | ||
| address | No | ||
| api_key | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions data sources but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, what happens if both lat/lng and address are provided, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) and omits essential details. While brevity is valued, it compromises completeness.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is not complete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to use the api_key, or how the tool behaves in edge cases. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters and no structured metadata.
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%, and the description adds no information about the parameters. For example, it doesn't indicate that 'lat' and 'lng' are for reverse geocoding, 'address' for forward, or the purpose of 'api_key'. The agent must guess parameter roles.
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 does geocoding (address ↔ lat/lng) and names the data sources (Census + Nominatim). However, it does not specify the exact return format or whether both forward and reverse are fully supported, which leaves some ambiguity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs its sibling 'distance'. The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!