RandoForge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

import_gpx

Import a local GPX file as a route, calculate its distance and elevation statistics, and optionally recalculate elevations from a DEM for comparable results.

Instructions

Importe un fichier GPX local comme itinéraire et calcule ses statistiques.

    `elevation="dem"` (défaut) recalcule les altitudes sur le MNT, pour des chiffres comparables
    aux itinéraires générés ; `"file"` garde celles du fichier (ex. altimètre barométrique).
    Lancer ensuite data_quality pour vérifier que la trace suit des chemins (règle G1).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	No
`path`	Yes
`elevation`	No	dem

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`stats`	Yes
`n_pois`	No
`source`	Yes
`n_points`	Yes
`route_id`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`validation_status`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that elevations are recomputed on the DEM by default and that statistics are produced, but says nothing about failure modes for malformed GPX, whether an existing route is overwritten, or permission/format constraints.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the option semantics and follow-up step. No filler, though the indentation/whitespace in the source is slightly awkward.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; the description correctly focuses on the elevation trade-off and the downstream validation step. Missing error/overwrite behavior keeps it from being fully complete, but it is adequate to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the elevation enum (dem vs file, including the barometric altimeter example) but leaves path and name unexplained, covering only one of three parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: importing a local GPX file as a route and computing its statistics. It implicitly contrasts with generated itineraries ("chiffres comparables aux itinéraires générés") but does not explicitly name a sibling it replaces or excludes, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance for the elevation option (dem vs file) and frames the expected follow-up call to data_quality with a stated reason (G1 rule). It does not cover when this tool should be preferred over manual route creation or other import paths, but the context is otherwise clear.

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