get_elevationGet the terrain elevation (metres above sea level) at a coordinate from the Norwegian national elevation model (Kartverket DTM). Covers mainland Norway.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | Yes | Latitude in decimal degrees (WGS84). Norway spans about 57–72°N. | |
| longitude | Yes | Longitude in decimal degrees (WGS84). Norway spans about 4–31°E. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the unit (metres above sea level), data source, and coverage area. However, it does not describe the return shape, error behavior for points outside mainland Norway, or other service behaviors, leaving some gaps for a tool without 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?
Two tight sentences with no filler. The core operation, unit, source, and coverage are all front-loaded and every clause adds value.
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 point-elevation lookup, the description plus schema covers the essentials: parameters, coordinate system, bounds, unit, source, and geographic scope. It could be more complete by mentioning what to use for an elevation profile, but it is largely sufficient.
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 description coverage is 100%, and both latitude and longitude already have clear descriptions with bounds and WGS84 context. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, so a baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the terrain elevation (metres above sea level) at a coordinate.' It also identifies the data source (Kartverket DTM) and geographic scope, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_elevation_profile.
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 clearly implies this tool is for a single point elevation lookup and explicitly notes it only covers mainland Norway. It does not explicitly route users to alternatives such as get_elevation_profile for elevation series, so it stops short of full when/where-not guidance.
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.