find_columnsList Macrostrat stratigraphic columns near a geographic point. Provide lat and lng (decimal degrees). Returns the columns covering that location with column name, regional group, coordinates, unit count, and area. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | Latitude (decimal degrees). | |
| lng | Yes | Longitude (decimal degrees). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "lat": 40.8071,
+ "lng": -104.9901
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. The description adds value by noting 'Keyless' and listing the exact return fields, which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every sentence adds relevant information. No fluff or redundancy.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, the inputs needed, and the structure of the result. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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 100% with clear descriptions for both lat and lng. The description only repeats 'Provide lat and lng' without adding semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'stratigraphic columns' and geographic scope 'near a geographic point'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_units by explicitly naming the resource type.
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?
States the required inputs (lat/lng) and notes that it is keyless, giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a simple lookup tool.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, e.g., geology tools vs. Polymarket tools vs. memory tools. The main ambiguity is between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, but their descriptions clearly differentiate them (grounded vs. casual). Overall, an agent can reliably select the right tool.
Names use snake_case consistently, but the structure varies: some are verb_noun (find_columns), some are noun_noun (entity_profile), some are single verbs (forget). This mix reduces predictability, though each name is still readable.
With 29 tools, the server covers many domains (geology, finance, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). This is a large surface for a server named 'Macrostrat', which implies a geology focus. The count feels bloated for a coherent set, though each tool individually seems justified.
The tool set is quite complete for its diverse sub-areas: geology has lookup tools, Pipeworx/Poly market has search, comparison, arbitrage, and memory/subscriptions have full CRUD. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no detailed geology unit edits), but overall coverage is strong.