GeoSpark

Line of sight

line_of_sight

Read-onlyIdempotent

Whether A and B can see each other over the terrain (Copernicus 30 m DEM, curvature and refraction), the minimum clearance and where it occurs; with frequency_mhz, the first Fresnel zone clearance of a radio link (60% clear is the usual rule).

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": {
      "lat_a": "<lat_a>",
      "lon_a": "<lon_a>",
      "lat_b": "<lat_b>",
      "lon_b": "<lon_b>"
    },
    "name": "line_of_sight"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lat_a`	Yes	Latitude in degrees (WGS84)
`lat_b`	Yes	Latitude in degrees (WGS84)
`lon_a`	Yes	Longitude in degrees (WGS84)
`lon_b`	Yes	Longitude in degrees (WGS84)
`height_a_m`	No	Height above ground at A (e.g. a mast)
`height_b_m`	No	Height above ground at B
`frequency_mhz`	No	For a radio link: report first Fresnel zone clearance

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`units`	No	Unit of each numeric field
`method`	Yes
`status`	No		ok
`fresnel`	No
`visible`	Yes
`warnings`	No	Caveats to tell the user
`distance_m`	Yes
`provenance`	No	Source, licence, attribution, retrieval time and method
`bearing_deg`	Yes
`min_clearance_m`	Yes	Smallest gap between the sight line and the terrain; negative = blocked
`min_clearance_at`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it names the elevation dataset, states that curvature and refraction are modeled, and reports what comes back (minimum clearance and where it occurs). The 60%-clear rule gives the agent an interpretation threshold it would not otherwise have. Minor gaps remain (distance limits, behavior outside DEM coverage).

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?

One dense sentence with the primary capability front-loaded and the conditional radio feature second. The parentheticals carry genuine information rather than padding, though the run-on structure makes it slightly harder to parse than a two-sentence split would.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 7-parameter computational tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies the missing methodological context (DEM source, refraction, Fresnel threshold). It stops short of stating limits on inter-point distance or units of the reported clearance, which an agent might need.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents lat/lon/height bounds and defaults. The description nonetheless adds real semantics for frequency_mhz — that it triggers Fresnel-zone clearance reporting and that 60% clear is the conventional acceptance rule — which is interpretive guidance absent from the schema text.

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 question answered ('whether A and B can see each other over the terrain') and the method (Copernicus 30 m DEM, curvature and refraction), plus the conditional radio-link variant. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling terrain_horizon, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: call this when you need visibility between two points, and pass frequency_mhz when the link is radio. It offers no explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g. terrain_horizon for a single-point horizon profile), so the agent must infer routing.

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

All GeoSpark tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.