Skip to main content
Glama

gisgp

by io.github.uponex
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

assess_property_hazard

PAID (200 credits) — multi-source US property hazard indicator: USGS seismic risk (required), plus best-effort FEMA disaster declaration history (state, last 10 years) and NOAA real-time active severe weather alerts at the point. Requires Authorization: Bearer and a sufficient credits balance — top up at https://gisgp.com/billing/mcp-credits/topup. Use estimate_cost first to quote without charging. Returns JSON: {ok, pga_percent_g, hazard_note, source, disaster_history_10y, active_weather_alerts}.

NOTE 2026-07-28: still not a full multi-hazard property report — no
flood-plain/wildfire-hazard polygon layer is reachable from GISGP's
infrastructure (FEMA NFHL/USFS geo-IP/WAF blocks), see hazard_scoring.py
module docstring and .claude/plans/kind-snacking-puppy.md. No invented
composite risk score — each source is reported honestly as what it is.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latYes
lonYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully shoulders the transparency burden. It discloses cost, required auth, data sources, limitations (infrastructure blocks), and notes that no composite risk score is invented. This is exceptionally honest and thorough.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured: starts with key info (paid, purpose), then sources, requirements, usage hint, return format, and limitations note. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the most critical information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the complexity (paid, multi-source, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: cost, auth, sources, return fields, limitations, and usage hint. It is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use the tool.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning parameters lat and lon have no descriptions. The description only implies they are coordinates for a point location but lacks specifics like expected range, coordinate system, or format. With no schema descriptions, the description should compensate more.

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?

The description clearly states the tool is a 'multi-source US property hazard indicator' with specific data sources (USGS seismic risk, FEMA disaster history, NOAA alerts). The verb 'assess' and resource 'property hazard' are specific, and the purpose is unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'assess_property_hazard_x402', the core purpose is well-defined.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear context on when to use: requires auth, paid (200 credits), suggests using estimate_cost first. It also notes limitations (no flood/wildfire). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for missing hazards, so the guidance is good but not optimal.

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

All gisgp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources