Skip to main content
Glama
ava11235

DEM Terrain Analysis

by ava11235
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool serves a distinct purpose: health check, summary analysis, and full data retrieval. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: analyze_terrain, check_api_health, get_full_terrain_data.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is reasonable for a focused terrain analysis server, covering health, summary, and full data. Could be expanded but not overly sparse.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers the core workflow: health check, summary analysis, and detailed data retrieval. Missing features like listing available metrics or multiple locations, but not critical.

  • Average 4.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Without annotations, the description compensates by explaining the internal process: 'Fetches 30m SRTM elevation data, runs RCAN super-resolution to 10m, and computes terrain analytics.' This provides transparency into data sources and processing steps, though it does not cover limitations or failure modes.

    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 organized with a one-sentence summary, then parameter details, and a returns section. It is informative without being overly verbose. The bullet-like listing of metrics could be more concise, but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded.

    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?

    With 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers inputs adequately and gives a summary of outputs including the Site Intelligence Score. However, it lacks specifics on output format or units for metrics, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

    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 adds full semantic meaning to all parameters. It explains latitude/longitude ranges, and for bbox_size_m it specifies units, range, and default. This goes well beyond the schema which only has titles and types.

    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 clearly states 'Analyze terrain at a given location and return a Site Intelligence Score summary,' specifying both the action and the resource. It mentions the return of a specific score, which helps distinguish it from the sibling tool 'get_full_terrain_data' that likely provides more detailed output.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_full_terrain_data.' There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred or when it should be avoided, leaving the AI agent without clear decision-making support.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations provided. Description covers main behavior (health check, returns status) but lacks details on auth, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate for a simple read-only tool.

    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?

    Two sentences, front-loaded with action, returns, and usage hint. No wasted words.

    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?

    Tool is simple (0 params, no output schema). Description explains return values and usage context completely. No gaps given the complexity.

    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?

    No parameters; schema coverage is 100% trivially. Description adds no param info, which is acceptable given zero parameters.

    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 explicitly states it checks if the DEM Super-Resolution API is running and ready, listing specific return values. It distinguishes from sibling tools (terrain analysis) by being a health check.

    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?

    Clearly advises using this before terrain analysis to confirm server up. Suggests context but doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, though siblings are provided in context.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Discloses that the response is large and describes what is returned (full sr_dem grid, model info, shapes, per-cell grids). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it does not mention auth needs or potential costs, but is still informative.

    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?

    Concise paragraph followed by structured Args and Returns. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.

    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?

    Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return value, and usage guidance. No apparent gaps for an agent to understand invocation.

    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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully documents all 4 parameters: latitude/longitude with ranges, bbox_size_m with range and default, metrics list with options and default. Adds complete semantic meaning.

    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?

    Clearly states the tool gets full super-resolved DEM and terrain metric grids for a location, and distinguishes itself from sibling 'analyze_terrain' by noting this tool is for detailed spatial analysis vs quick summaries.

    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 clear context: recommends using analyze_terrain for quick summaries when large responses aren't needed. Does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is sufficient.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

terrain-analysis-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

terrain-analysis-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/ava11235/terrain-analysis-mcp'

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