GISGP Lite ($3 a month, or $1 once for 24 hours) — pass the api_key of that account (or Authorization: Bearer). US Public Land Survey System township, range, section and meridian at a point (BLM CadNSDI). Returns JSON {ok, found, township, range, section, meridian, plssid, …} or {ok, found: false, note}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes | ||
| api_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the auth mechanism (api_key param or Authorization: Bearer), the cost model ($3/mo or $1 per 24h), and the failure shape {ok, found: false, note}. Rate limits and quota behavior at the low tier are not mentioned.
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?
Compact and information-dense, but front-loads the pricing/plan detail ahead of the actual purpose, which slightly buries the tool's function. Every sentence nonetheless carries context.
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?
For a 2-required-param point lookup with an output schema, the description is complete enough: auth, cost, and the found/not-found return branches are covered. Return field detail is redundant against the output schema but not harmful.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for api_key (explains the two auth forms), but lat/lon are left to their names alone, which is acceptable for obviously-named coordinates but not a full compensation for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: retrieves US Public Land Survey System township/range/section/meridian at a point, citing the BLM CadNSDI source. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling plss_find, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus plss_find or any other sibling, and no preconditions beyond the account/auth note. The pricing line implies a paid-context but never states when the tool is the right choice.
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.