gisgp

get_elevation_profile

PAID (50 credits) — elevation PROFILE along a line, not a single point: pass points=[[lon,lat],…] (up to 100) or start=[lon,lat] + end=[lon,lat] with samples (2-100, evenly spaced). Returns every point's elevation and distance plus min/max, total gain/loss, net change, mean and max segment slope. For "how steep is this route", "line-of-sight terrain between two towers", "elevation change along this pipeline/trail". Copernicus DEM GLO-90 via Open-Meteo (~90 m). The free get_terrain_profile gives one point; this gives the whole line + the maths. Needs an API key with credits — use estimate_cost first.

Returns JSON: {ok, points, distance_m, min/max/start/end_elevation_m,
total_gain_m, total_loss_m, net_change_m, mean_slope_pct,
max_segment_slope_pct, profile:[{i, lon, lat, distance_m, elevation_m}]}.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_elevation_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`end`	No
`start`	No
`points`	No
`samples`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a strong job: it discloses the 50-credit cost, data source (Copernicus DEM GLO-90 via Open-Meteo, ~90 m), input limits (up to 100 points, samples 2-100), and output structure. It lacks explicit failure-mode or auth details, but the credit/key warning plus complete output description make it highly transparent.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: cost, scope, input formats, output summary, examples, data source, alternative, prerequisite, and return schema. It is somewhat longer than minimal, but the front-loaded 'PAID... not a single point' hook and line-break structure make it scannable. Slight redundancy in listing the output twice, but acceptable.

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 no annotations and a 0% schema description coverage, the description covers cost, input modes, constraints, output fields, data source, and sibling differentiation. Output schema exists so return values are doubly documented. The only notable omission is guidance on what happens if both points and start/end are supplied, and there is no explicit statement that one of these modes is required, but the description implies it strongly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters, and it does. It specifies the points format as [[lon,lat],…] with a 100-point cap, start/end as [lon,lat] arrays, the samples range (2-100) and even-spacing behavior. This goes well beyond the bare schema and enables correct invocation.

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 opens by stating a specific verb and resource: 'elevation PROFILE along a line, not a single point'. It explicitly contrasts itself with get_terrain_profile, which gives one point, and names concrete use cases like route steepness and terrain line-of-sight. An agent can immediately tell this tool apart from its sibling without opening schemas.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use examples ('For "how steep is this route"...'), names the alternative tool (get_terrain_profile) and explains the difference, and even states prerequisites ('Needs an API key with credits — use estimate_cost first'). Nothing is left to inference.

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.