Skip to main content
Glama

Coordinates

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Point In Bbox

point_in_bbox
Read-onlyIdempotent

Test whether a lat/lon point is inside a bounding box "minLat,minLon,maxLat,maxLon".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latYes
lonYes
bboxYese.g. "20,-130,55,-60".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "bbox": "20,-130,55,-60",
+    "lat": 40.7128,
+    "lon": -74.006
+  },
+  {
+    "bbox": "40,-10,55,10",
+    "lat": 48.8566,
+    "lon": 2.3522
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of 'Test whether' aligns. However, it does not elaborate on return values or edge cases, but the annotations suffice for basic transparency.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and parameter format.

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 simple test tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. Lacks mention of return type (likely boolean), but examples aid understanding. Nearly complete.

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 33% (only bbox described). The description adds meaning for bbox (format: minLat,minLon,maxLat,maxLon). Lat and lon lack additional description, but examples in schema provide context. Partial compensation for low coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Test whether'), the resource (lat/lon point and bounding box), and the bounding box format. It is distinct from siblings like 'bounding_box' and 'centroid'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain how it differs from 'bounding_box' or when a point-in-bbox test is appropriate.

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

All Coordinates toolsInspect
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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical; bet_research and polymarket_edges both analyze Polymarket markets). Descriptions are detailed but the sheer number of similar tools creates ambiguity for agents.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_subscriptions, create_subscription), but a few use noun_verb (bet_research) or are standalone nouns (centroid, midpoint). Overall, the pattern is fairly consistent despite minor deviations.

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is on the high side for an MCP server. The scope is broad (data access, prediction markets, geospatial, memory, subscriptions), so each tool earns its place, but the number is borderline for coherence.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of functionalities: data querying, entity profiles, comparisons, prediction market analysis, geospatial, memory, subscriptions, etc. Minor gaps exist (no batch operations or data export), but the core workflows are well-supported.

Resources