gisgp

rank_hazard_safe_sites

PAID (200 credits PER CANDIDATE, max 25 candidates/call) — bulk seismic- risk screener. Runs assess_property_hazard's seismic check under the hood for each [lon, lat] candidate and returns only the top_n ranked by lowest real seismic risk (PGA). Not a full multi-hazard ranking — ranked by ONE real, single-source metric only (matches this project's no-invented- composite-score stance); disaster_history_10y/active_weather_alerts are still included per-candidate for context. Use estimate_cost(tool_name= "rank_hazard_safe_sites", units=) first to quote. Requires Authorization: Bearer <api_key>. Returns JSON: {ok, evaluated, excluded_count, excluded, ranked_by, top, 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": {
      "candidates": "<candidates>"
    },
    "name": "rank_hazard_safe_sites"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`top_n`	No
`candidates`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedJul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description covers all behavioral aspects: cost, max candidates, internal call to assess_property_hazard, ranking metric (PGA), included context fields, authentication requirement, and return JSON structure. No contradictions.

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 comprehensive but slightly verbose. It front-loads critical info (cost, purpose) and uses parentheses for clarifications. Could trim minor details (e.g., project stance) but overall efficient.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (bulk operation, cost, internal dependency), the description covers all necessary context: purpose, input format, cost model, ranking methodology, output fields, and prerequisites. With an output schema presumed available, no gaps remain.

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%, but description adds meaning by specifying candidates as [lon, lat] pairs and top_n defaulting to 5. While it doesn't detail array constraints or coordinate range, it provides sufficient guidance for usage. The output schema mention partly compensates.

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 clearly states the tool is a bulk seismic-risk screener that ranks candidates by lowest real seismic risk. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it is not a full multi-hazard ranking and aligns with the project's no-invented-composite-score stance.

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?

Explicitly advises to use estimate_cost first for quoting. It clarifies when to use (for seismic risk ranking) and when not (not a full multi-hazard ranking). Also mentions max candidates per call and cost structure.

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.