gisgp

guess_crs

GISGP Lite (a 24-hour pass, a 7-day pass or a monthly plan) — pass the api_key of that account (or Authorization: Bearer). which coordinate reference system puts these easting/northing rows where they belong. lines are text rows such as "P-7 690183.66, 4729859.76" (up to 1,000); say roughly where with country ("Kenya") or lat/lon. Returns JSON {ok, confidence: high|medium|low|none, candidates: [{epsg, name, area, swapped, national, km, lat, lon}], rows, bad_rows}. Then convert with the chosen EPSG via reproject_geojson or /api/v1/crs/apply.

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": {
      "lines": "<lines>"
    },
    "name": "guess_crs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lat`	No
`lon`	No
`lines`	Yes
`api_key`	No
`country`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth model (api_key or Bearer header), the 1,000-row input cap, and the confidence grading scheme (high|medium|low|none). It doesn't explain how confidence is derived or how ambiguous candidate lists should be resolved, but coverage is above average for an unannotated tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is dense and information-rich but badly front-loaded: it opens with a paid-tier advertisement before saying what the tool does, and the purpose sentence is a grammatical fragment. The row-format example and return shape earn their place, but the pricing clause could be moved or cut.

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?

For a five-parameter tool with an output schema, the description supplies the missing input semantics, auth requirements, and a next-step recommendation, so an agent can call it correctly. What's absent is guidance on interpreting the candidate list (swapped, national, km fields) when confidence is low.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains `lines` with a concrete row-format example and a 1,000-row ceiling, plus `country` with an example ('Kenya') and `lat`/`lon` as a location hint. All five parameters are touched, though api_key and lat/lon get only minimal elaboration.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The core function (identify which CRS fits easting/northing rows) is stated, but it is buried inside a grammatically tangled sentence that also carries pricing and auth information. There is no differentiation from the very similar siblings guess_crs_from_coordinates and epsg_suggest, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 does provide a clear downstream path ('Then convert with the chosen EPSG via reproject_geojson or /api/v1/crs/apply'), which implies usage context. But it never states when to pick this over guess_crs_from_coordinates or epsg_suggest, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given beyond the auth requirement.

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.