maptiler_geolocate_ipGeolocates the IP address making the request — from a hosted Worker this is the server's egress IP, not the end-user's. API: GET /geolocation/ip.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| elevation | No | Include elevation of the located point. |
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?
Discloses the critical behavior that the geolocated IP is from the server's egress, not the end-user's, which adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. Also provides the API endpoint for reference.
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?
Two succinct sentences that efficiently convey the purpose, a key behavioral note, and API details. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.
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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate. It explains the purpose and a key limitation. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., coordinates, address), which would be helpful for an agent to decide if the output is suitable.
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 100% and the parameter 'elevation' is already described in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states it geolocates the IP address making the request, with specific clarification about the Worker egress IP. Distinct from sibling tools that handle geocoding, elevation, and coordinate systems.
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?
Provides clear context about when to use (for IP geolocation) and a key limitation (egress IP from Workers). However, does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: forward geocoding (batch and single), reverse geocoding, IP geolocation, data features retrieval, elevation lookup, coordinate system search, and coordinate transformation. There is no overlap or ambiguity among them.
All tools follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores, prefixed by 'maptiler_'. While most are consistent (e.g., 'get_elevation', 'search_coordinate_systems'), 'reverse_geocode' and 'geolocate_ip' are slight variations but still clear. The naming is predictable and readable.
8 tools is an appropriate number for a geolocation and mapping utility server. Each tool serves a distinct operation without being excessive or insufficient. The scope is well-defined.
The tool set covers core geolocation operations: forward/reverse geocoding, batch processing, IP geolocation, elevation, coordinate systems, and data features. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no map tile retrieval or routing), but the set is complete for the advertised functionality.