datasetsList the supported global DEM (digital elevation model) dataset identifiers available via OpenTopography: SRTMGL1, SRTMGL3, AW3D30, NASADEM, COP30, COP90.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| datasets | Yes | List of available DEM dataset identifiers |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing specific dataset identifiers (SRTMGL1, etc.), providing context beyond annotations without contradiction.
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 with no waste, front-loading the main purpose and listing examples. It is optimally concise for the tool's simplicity.
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 tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It clearly states what is listed (identifiers) and provides concrete examples, leaving no ambiguity.
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 has no parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline is 4 for a zero-parameter tool, and the description adds no additional parameter info, which is appropriate.
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 lists supported global DEM dataset identifiers, using a specific verb ('list') and resource ('supported global DEM dataset identifiers'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'dem' by focusing on identifiers.
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 fetching available DEM dataset identifiers but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'dem' tool). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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.
The tool set has several near-duplicate entries (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded; five polymarket_* tools), and the server name implies topography while most tools serve unrelated data lookups, making it hard to select the right tool for a task.
Most tool names use snake_case and a verb-first style, but there are notable exceptions like 'datasets', 'dem', and 'forget', and the 'pipeworx' prefix is applied inconsistently (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending vs. ask_pipeworx). The pattern is readable but not fully uniform.
With 34 tools, the count is excessive for a server named Opentopography, especially since only 3 tools (datasets, dem, point_elevation) relate to the implied domain. The bulk of tools belong to a general-purpose data and prediction-market service, creating a severe scope mismatch.
For the implied topography domain, the surface is severely incomplete: only dataset listing, a raster fetch, and a point elevation lookup are present, missing expected operations like elevation profiles, point cloud access, or data processing. For the broader Pipeworx domain, coverage is broad but this does not match the server's stated focus.