Skip to main content
Glama

Map overview

map_overview

Get spatial orientation before per-tile reads: map extents, fort core, surface z, active z-levels, and ranked stairway runs—use it to choose which grids to pull.

Instructions

Cheap spatial orientation to run BEFORE any per-tile terrain read: map extents (x/y/z tile counts), the fort-core coordinate (the same 3D citizen centroid defenses() reports), surface_z_at_core — the surface z-level directly above the fort center, i.e. the highest open-to-sky ground tile in THAT ONE COLUMN, or null if the core is not under open sky (this is NOT geology()'s surface_z_max, which is the highest open-to-sky ground tile anywhere on the embark; on a sloped map the two legitimately differ by many z-levels, so pick the one you mean) — the z-levels that carry player activity (construction and pending digging, listed separately and as a union), and stairways collapsed to traversable single-column vertical runs (x, y, z_top, z_bottom); a run only spans levels that actually connect by DF stair rules, so a helical shaft splits into its climbable segments. The payload is fixed-size regardless of fort size: activity is a set of z-levels, never per-tile, and stair columns are RANKED BY HEIGHT (tallest run first) then capped, so when a fort exceeds the cap the tallest shafts survive and only trivial fragments are dropped (stair_columns_truncated flags the overflow; stair_columns_total gives the full count). Fog-of-war honest: undiscovered tiles never leak. Use it to decide which z-levels and area to pull grids for. Returns {"error":"no fort loaded"} if no fort is active.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behaviors: 'Cheap' (performance), 'fixed-size payload regardless of fort size', stair columns 'RANKED BY HEIGHT' then capped with truncation flag and total count, fog-of-war honesty ('undiscovered tiles never leak'), and the exact error response when no fort is loaded. This is exceptionally transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence carries critical semantic weight, explaining nuanced edge cases (surface_z vs geology, helical shaft splitting, cap ordering, fog-of-war). It uses structured lists and parentheticals effectively, staying organized despite the detail. No filler or repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema provided, the description must explain all return values, and it does comprehensively: extents, centroid, surface_z_at_core (with null case), activity z-levels, stair columns (with ranking/truncation metadata), and error behavior. It also covers performance and honesty characteristics, making the tool fully understandable without additional documentation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema to clarify. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description correctly omits parameter details since none exist. The behavior descriptions are entirely self-contained for a parameterless tool.

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 immediately states the tool's specific purpose: 'Cheap spatial orientation to run BEFORE any per-tile terrain read.' It enumerates exact outputs (map extents, fort-core coordinate, surface_z_at_core, activity z-levels, stairways) and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like geology() and defenses(), making its role unmistakable.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'run BEFORE any per-tile terrain read' and 'Use it to decide which z-levels and area to pull grids for.' It also clearly contrasts with geology()'s surface_z_max, warning against confusion and telling the user to 'pick the one you mean.' This gives both when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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/alexanderolvera/dfhack-mcp'

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