Skip to main content
Glama

stack_provenance

Read-only

Check whether a site's passes are one measurement, before measuring them.

``stack_stats`` refuses a selection whose rasters were made by *different*
``umbra convert`` settings — a calibrated pass differenced against an
uncalibrated one puts the difference between two conversions on the time
axis and reports it as change on the ground. This is the question that
refusal answers, asked ahead of it: it reads each acquisition's ``UMBRA_*``
conversion record straight from its raster header (kilobytes per pass, no
pixels, no co-registration) and groups the selection by what its pixel
values *are*.

Returns ``agrees`` (whether ``stack_stats`` would accept the selection),
``groups`` largest-first — each with the conversion ``record`` its members
share, their ``item_ids`` and the ``hrefs`` to re-run on — plus ``shared``
(the record they all agree on) when they agree, ``refusal`` (verbatim the
error ``stack_stats`` would raise) when they do not, and ``unreadable`` for
any source that could not be opened at all, which is an incomplete answer
rather than a mixed one.

Reach for it in two situations. **After** a ``stack_stats`` call fails with
a provenance refusal: ``groups[0]["hrefs"]`` is the largest set of passes
that *do* agree, so re-running ``stack_stats`` on those is a measurement
rather than a guess — the refusal itself cannot name that subset. And
**before** measuring a long series you did not assemble yourself, since the
check costs a header read per pass and saves the whole cube when the answer
is no.

A series of Umbra's published products as they ship (the common case) agrees
trivially: every pass reads as ``"(unrecorded)"``, which is one value, so
``agrees`` is true and ``shared`` is empty. **No model is called.**

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlsYes
assetNoGEC

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint=true: it discloses the cost model (a header read per pass, kilobytes, no pixels, no co-registration), that no model is called, and how unreadable sources are treated differently from mixed ones. These are exactly the traits that determine whether an agent should spend a call here.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core question, then usage, then returns, then the trivial-agreement caveat — a sensible order. Some prose is dense and could be trimmed (the paragraph re-explaining return keys), but nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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?

With an output schema present, the return-value narrative is partly redundant, but the description still supplies what the schema cannot: cost, the refusal-vs-unreadable distinction, and the '(unrecorded)' trivial-agreement case. The only real hole is that the inputs themselves are left unexplained.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for two parameters, yet the description never defines them: 'urls' is only obliquely implied by talk of passes and assets, and 'asset' (default GEC) is never mentioned at all. The heavy return-value discussion does not compensate for undocumented inputs on a tool with zero schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('check whether a site's passes are one measurement') and makes the distinction from stack_stats concrete by naming the exact failure mode it pre-empts (a calibrated pass differenced against an uncalibrated one). An agent can choose between this and stack_stats without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance in two named situations: after a stack_stats provenance refusal (with the concrete remedy, groups[0]["hrefs"]) and before measuring a long series the caller did not assemble. It also notes the common case where the check is trivially satisfied, which steers agents away from over-using it.

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.