Skip to main content
Glama
IBM

chuk-mcp-her

Official
by IBM

her_cross_reference

Cross-reference candidate locations against known heritage assets to classify each as match, near, or novel based on proximity.

Instructions

Cross-reference candidate locations against known heritage assets.

Takes a list of candidate locations (e.g. from LiDAR survey) and classifies each as match, near, or novel based on proximity to known NHLE records, AIM aerial mapping features, and optionally Heritage Gateway records.

Args: candidates: JSON array of {"easting": x, "northing": y} dicts match_radius_m: Distance threshold for "match" (default 50m) near_radius_m: Distance threshold for "near" (default 200m) designation_types: Comma-separated NHLE designation types to match against (e.g. "scheduled_monument,listed_building") include_aim: Include AIM aerial mapping features in known assets (adds monument_type, period, form from aerial archaeology) gateway_sites: JSON array of Gateway records with easting/northing (output of her_enrich_gateway) to merge into known sites output_mode: Response format — "json" (default) or "text"

Returns: Classification of each candidate as match, near, or novel

Tips for LLMs: - Input candidates as BNG easting/northing coordinates - "match" means the candidate is within match_radius_m of a known asset - "near" means within near_radius_m but not a match - "novel" means no known asset within near_radius_m - Set include_aim=true for LiDAR workflows to include aerial features - Use her_enrich_gateway first to resolve Gateway record coordinates, then pass the output as gateway_sites for richer cross-referencing - Use her_export_for_lidar to get known sites in the same area

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
candidatesNo[]
include_aimNo
output_modeNojson
gateway_sitesNo[]
near_radius_mNo
match_radius_mNo
designation_typesNo
Behavior3/5

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

Describes the classification logic and data sources (NHLE, AIM, Gateway) but does not disclose any side effects, authorization requirements, or error handling. With no annotations, the burden is on the description, and it partially meets it.

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?

Well-structured with separate sections for description, Args, Returns, and Tips. However, it is somewhat verbose for a tool description; some tips could be integrated into parameter descriptions. Still front-loaded and clear.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the input parameters fully but the return value description is minimal ('Classification of each candidate as match, near, or novel'). A more detailed output format or example would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All 7 parameters are explained in the Args section with types, defaults, and semantics. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates, adding significant value beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool cross-references candidate locations against heritage assets and classifies them as match, near, or novel. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling her_crossref_map, leaving some ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit tips for LLMs: use BNG coordinates, set include_aim for LiDAR, and use her_enrich_gateway first for Gateway records. This gives clear usage context, though lacks explicit when-not-to-use.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/IBM/chuk-mcp-her'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server