Move a WGS84 point by a geodesic distance (metres) along a compass bearing (0=N, 90=E, 180=S, 270=W). Pure computation, no external API. Returns JSON: {ok, lon, lat, origin_lon, origin_lat, distance_m, bearing_deg, source}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes | ||
| distance_m | Yes | ||
| bearing_deg | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the geodesic nature, pure computation, and return fields. It lacks details on error handling or constraints, but the core behavior is well communicated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, with the main purpose first, followed by computational nature and return format. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and presence of output schema (implied by return fields listed), the description covers the essential operation. However, it omits expected ranges for distance and bearing, coordinate validation, and error scenarios, leaving gaps for complex use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'distance_m' as geodesic distance in metres and 'bearing_deg' with compass convention. 'lon' and 'lat' are implied by 'WGS84 point'. This compensates partially for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('move a WGS84 point'), the method ('geodesic distance along a compass bearing'), and the output format. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like convert_coordinates or buffer_geojson.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('pure computation, no external API') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions. For a tool with many siblings, more direct guidance would help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many assess_* composite tools (datacenter, ev_charging, renewable, telecom, due_diligence) share the same building blocks of grid proximity, land cover, and terrain, making their boundaries fuzzy. assess_property_hazard_x402 also duplicates assess_property_hazard with only a payment-method difference, and bundle_* tools intentionally overlap with the free primitives they replace.
There is a mix of verb_noun tools (query_features, geocode_address), noun-first geometry tools (centroids_geojson, envelope_geojson), and inconsistent _geojson suffix usage (buffer_geojson, fix_geometry, geometry_stats). The assess_* and bundle_* prefixes offer some grouping, but no single naming pattern is followed across the set.
With 85 tools, the surface is extreme for an MCP server and far exceeds the typical well-scoped 3-15 range. Many tools are convenience bundles or variants that could be consolidated, making the count a significant usability burden.
The toolkit covers a broad range of GIS tasks: format conversions, GeoJSON analysis, FeatureServer query/inspection, geocoding, site assessment, and sharing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no Excel-to-GeoJSON, no FeatureServer update/delete), but most missing functionality can be worked around by chaining existing tools.