Skip to main content
Glama

describe_scene

Read-only

Return a SAR-literate reading of the scene at url.

The picture and the metadata card are produced deterministically; a model
only interprets them. How that model is reached depends on whether this
process holds a vision key:

- **No key** (the public community host): this tool does **not** call a
  vision model. It returns the PNG plus a reading kit (SAR rules, the
  metadata card, the JSON schema). Produce the JSON, then call
  :func:`stamp_description` — that is the validation boundary
  (provenance-stamped ``{summary, observed_features, confidence,
  caveats}``). Until you stamp it, your prose is not pipeline output.
  A baked preview is typically 512 px; the kit names the size and
  that a local server can stream a higher-resolution GeoTIFF.
- **Key configured** (local stdio): sends the picture to that vision
  model, validates through ``parse_description``, and returns the
  stamped object directly.

The packaged SAR rules are the value over just looking at ``quicklook``:
brightness is backscatter not sunlight, speckle is not structure, a dark
patch may be radar shadow not water, one frame is not change.

``preview`` defaults to ``"auto"``: a baked catalog preview if this server
has one, else a fresh render. ``"render"`` is refused on the public host.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dbNo
urlYes
assetNoGEC
modelNo
previewNoauto
max_sizeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description provides critical operational context (two distinct processing modes, refusal of 'render' on public host) that is completely absent from the single readOnlyHint annotation. It explains the underlying methodology (backscatter vs. sunlight) which is vital for SAR data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is highly verbose and dense, relying on technical jargon (e.g., 'backscatter', 'provenance-stamped') and complex bulleted workflows. This excessive detail makes it difficult for an agent to quickly parse the core utility.

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

Completeness3/5

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

While the tool is complex, the description is highly complete regarding its environmental and processing constraints (e.g., local vs public host). However, it is incomplete for practical invocation because it fails to define the semantics of the majority of its input parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Since schema coverage is 0%, the description bears the burden of explaining its parameters. It offers almost no semantic help for 4 out of 6 parameters (`db`, `asset`, `model`, `max_size`), leaving an AI agent guessing their function.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the core purpose: returning a SAR-literate reading of a scene at a given URL. However, it spends significant effort on implementation details (vision keys, model vs. no key) rather than simply stating the function of the tool.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description is exceptionally clear about operational requirements, distinguishing between 'No key' and 'Key configured' modes. It explicitly dictates the necessary workflow (calling :func:`stamp_description`) and explains the value proposition over sibling tools like quicklook.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.