point_elevationElevation at a point (returns a 1-pixel raster URL — use opentopodata for direct point values).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes | ||
| dataset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size_bytes | Yes | Size of the raster file in bytes | |
| request_url | Yes | URL to fetch the 1-pixel raster GeoTIFF | |
| content_type | Yes | MIME type of the raster response |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "dataset": "SRTM GL3",
- "lat": 40.7128,
- "lon": -74.006
- },
- {
- "lat": 51.5074,
- "lon": -0.1278
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "dataset": "SRTMGL3",
+ "lat": 40.7128,
+ "lon": -74.006
+ },
+ {
+ "lat": 51.5074,
+ "lon": -0.1278
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "dataset": "SRTM GL3",
+ "lat": 40.7128,
+ "lon": -74.006
+ },
+ {
+ "lat": 51.5074,
+ "lon": -0.1278
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "content_type": {
+ "description": "MIME type of the raster response",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "request_url": {
+ "description": "URL to fetch the 1-pixel raster GeoTIFF",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "size_bytes": {
+ "description": "Size of the raster file in bytes",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "request_url",
+ "content_type",
+ "size_bytes"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that the result is a URL (not a direct value) and is a 1-pixel raster, which is behavioral context beyond 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficiently communicates the core behavior and an alternative.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, missing dataset guidance and coordinate details may confuse agents. Adequate but not exhaustive.
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 0%, so the description should compensate. It does not explain any parameters (e.g., valid datasets, coordinate format). Only schema examples provide minimal guidance.
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 returns elevation for a point, specifying it provides a 1-pixel raster URL. It distinguishes itself from opentopodata for direct values, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
It advises using opentopodata for direct point values, indicating when not to use this tool. However, it doesn't cover other scenarios or prerequisites.
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.