Skip to main content
Glama
IBM

chuk-mcp-her

Official
by IBM

her_search_aerial

Search aerial investigation mapping data to find archaeological features like cropmarks, earthworks, and enclosures, complementing NHLE records.

Instructions

Search aerial investigation mapping data for archaeological features.

Queries Historic England AIM data for features identified from aerial photographs and LiDAR. Includes cropmarks, earthworks, enclosures, ring ditches, saltern mounds, and other features not in the NHLE.

Args: monument_type: Monument type keyword (e.g. "SALTERN MOUND", "ENCLOSURE") period: Period filter (e.g. "IRON AGE", "ROMAN", "MEDIEVAL") bbox: Bounding box as "xmin,ymin,xmax,ymax" in BNG (EPSG:27700) lat: WGS84 latitude for radius search lon: WGS84 longitude for radius search radius_m: Search radius in metres (requires lat/lon) max_results: Maximum results (1-2000, default 50) offset: Pagination offset output_mode: Response format — "json" (default) or "text"

Returns: Matching aerial mapping features with monument type, period, evidence

Tips for LLMs: Use monument_type and period as uppercase keywords matching the AIM vocabulary. Key monument types: "SALTERN MOUND" or "RED HILL" for salt-production mounds, "ENCLOSURE" for prehistoric/Roman enclosures, "RING DITCH" for barrow ditches, "EARTHWORK" for general earthworks, "FIELD SYSTEM" for field boundaries. Periods: "IRON AGE", "ROMAN", "MEDIEVAL". These features are NOT in the NHLE — they complement her_search_monuments. For comprehensive area surveys, run all three sources: her_search_monuments (NHLE designated), her_search_aerial (AIM cropmarks/earthworks), and her_search_heritage_gateway (local HER undesignated sites), then merge and deduplicate the results. Use her_map to display the combined results on a map.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latNo
lonNo
bboxNo
offsetNo
periodNo
radius_mNo
max_resultsNo
output_modeNojson
monument_typeNo
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the data source (AIM), return fields (monument type, period, evidence), and output formats, implying a safe read operation. It does not explicitly state read-only or disclose any side effects, which is acceptable for a search tool.

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 well-structured with a clear intro, parameter list, return info, and LLM tips. It front-loads the purpose. While long, every sentence provides value for a complex tool with 9 parameters, though minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeating the data source).

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the search capability, parameters, return content, and cross-references to sibling tools. It lacks explicit pagination semantics (offset meaning, result limits) and error handling, but overall is quite complete for a search tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for all 9 parameters, including examples, default values, and tips (e.g., 'monument_type: Monument type keyword (e.g. "SALTERN MOUND", "ENCLOSURE")'). This adds critical meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('aerial investigation mapping data'), explicitly states it queries Historic England AIM data for archaeological features from aerial photos and LiDAR, and contrasts with NHLE monuments, distinguishing it from sibling tools like her_search_monuments.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool (for cropmarks, earthworks, etc. not in NHLE), provides tips for LLMs on keyword usage, and recommends running all three sources (NHLE, AIM, Heritage Gateway) for comprehensive surveys, thus guiding on alternatives.

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