Skip to main content
Glama

plss_lookup

GISGP Lite (a 24-hour pass, a 7-day pass or a monthly plan) — 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}.

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": {
      "lat": "<lat>",
      "lon": "<lon>"
    },
    "name": "plss_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latYes
lonYes
api_keyNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and usefully discloses the authentication requirement (api_key or Authorization: Bearer) and the success/failure response shape. However, it does not state read-only status, rate limits, or other operational constraints beyond authentication.

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 reasonably short, but it front-loads billing/pass information before stating the actual PLSS lookup purpose. The return-shape sentence is useful, though the structure could be more directly purpose-first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple point lookup with an output schema, the description covers the core resource, authentication, and basic return behavior. It remains incomplete on coordinate semantics and when to choose this tool over plss_find.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains api_key minimally but does not clarify lat/lon coordinate reference system, units, ranges, or coordinate order beyond the parameter names.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description specifies a clear resource and scope: US Public Land Survey System township, range, section and meridian at a point, sourced from BLM CadNSDI. It does not distinguish the tool from the sibling plss_find, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description implies use for point-based PLSS lookup but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives such as plss_find. It mentions the required GISGP Lite pass/API key, but that is authentication context rather than tool-selection guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.