maptiler_get_elevationLook up ground elevation at up to 50 coordinates. Returns an array of [lng, lat, elevation] triples. API: GET /elevation/{locations}.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unit | No | Elevation unit. Default meters. | |
| locations | Yes | 1-50 [longitude, latitude] pairs (latitude -85..85). |
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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. Description adds the API endpoint, max 50 coordinates, and return format. No contradiction; but lacks disclosure of rate limits, authentication, or error handling.
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 concise sentences with no redundancy. Key information is front-loaded: purpose, constraints, and return type. Every word earns its place.
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 low complexity, description fully covers input constraints (max 50 coordinates), output format, and API endpoint. No output schema needed as return is described.
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% so description need not add much. However, description does not explain parameter details beyond the schema; it only mentions return format. Baseline 3 due to high coverage.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'look up', the resource 'ground elevation', and specifics like up to 50 coordinates and return format of [lng, lat, elevation] triples. It distinguishes from sibling tools which handle geocoding, geolocation, and data features.
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 tool vs alternatives, such as when to use batch geocode for location data or reverse geocode. It only describes the function, not use cases or exclusions.
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.