Converts coordinates for multiple points between coordinate reference systems in a single batch operation. Provide source and target CRS along with point arrays to get reprojected results.
Reproject many points between two CRSes in one call. Same from/to semantics as reproject_point.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | ||
| from | Yes | ||
| points | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about what happens on invalid CRS, whether points are mutated, output ordering, or error handling for a bulk operation.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words, though the brevity contributes to the semantic gaps.
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?
With zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin for a 3-parameter bulk geospatial tool. It should explain CRS format, point shape, and return behavior, none of which is present.
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 description coverage is 0% across three required parameters (from, to, points). The description only says 'Same `from`/`to` semantics as reproject_point,' which defers explanation to a sibling rather than explaining CRS format expectations here. It adds little beyond what the schema field names imply.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Reproject many points between two CRSes in one call.' This clearly distinguishes it from its sibling reproject_point by scope ('many' vs. single point), though the phrasing is terse.
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?
The description implies bulk use via 'many points ... in one call,' and references reproject_point's semantics, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over reproject_point or transform_coords. Guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.