gisgp

assess_reforestation_site

PAID (100 credits) — reforestation/afforestation site-scouting composite: terrain, land cover (flags already-forested/urban/water/snow as unsuitable), and a year of precipitation history (tree-viability proxy). All-free-primitive composite, priced for the bulk-screening convenience (carbon-offset/land-screening use case), no invented "sequestration score". Requires Authorization: Bearer <api_key> and sufficient credits balance. Returns JSON: {ok, terrain, land_cover, physically_unsuitable, precipitation, note}.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "lon": "<lon>",
      "lat": "<lat>"
    },
    "name": "assess_reforestation_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lat`	Yes
`lon`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedJul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost, authentication requirements, and return format. It explicitly states it is based on free data and does not invent scores, providing transparency about its limitations. It does not mention potential side effects or rate limits, but as a read-only query, this is minor.

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?

The description is relatively concise given the amount of information conveyed (cost, purpose, data sources, limitations, return format). It front-loads key details (PAID, purpose). Minor improvement would be more structured formatting, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (composite of multiple data sources) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers most essential aspects: purpose, cost, data used, what it does not do, authentication, and return fields. It lacks error handling or rate limit info, but these are not critical for selection. It differentiates well among many sibling tools.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 2 required parameters (lat, lon) with 0% description coverage. The description implies lat/lon are coordinates for the site but does not explain units, coordinate system, or valid ranges. While the purpose is clear, the lack of explicit parameter guidance means the agent must infer meaning.

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 assesses a site for reforestation/afforestation using terrain, land cover, and precipitation data. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it's a composite for bulk-screening and that it does not invent a 'sequestration score', making its purpose specific and unique among similar assessment tools.

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?

The description mentions cost (100 credits) and that it is priced for bulk-screening convenience, implying use for screening many sites. It also says 'no invented sequestration score', guiding against using it for carbon credit calculations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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

All gisgp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.