gisgp

assess_wildfire_risk

Real-time active wildfire proximity at a point via NASA FIRMS (VIIRS satellite hotspot detections, last 2 days) + electric grid exposure (transmission lines are a documented wildfire-ignition- liability factor). No key needed — GISGP holds its own free NASA FIRMS key server-side. Two separate honest indicators, no fabricated combined risk score. Returns JSON: {ok, active_fires, grid_proximity}.

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_wildfire_risk"
  }
}

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 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses data source (NASA FIRMS, last 2 days), no API key needed, and that indicators are separate with no fabricated score. With no annotations, it covers key behavioral aspects well.

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?

Description is two sentences plus return format; front-loaded with key information, but could be slightly more structured.

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?

Covers purpose, data source, authentication, return format; missing error handling or limitations, but adequate for a simple tool with output schema.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not add details about lat/lon format, ranges, or constraints beyond implying a point location.

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 wildfire risk at a point using NASA FIRMS data and grid exposure, distinguishing it from siblings like assess_grid_exposure.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for point-based wildfire risk, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like assess_grid_exposure or assess_property_hazard.

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.