A
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceAI-powered terrain analysis for any location on Earth. Uses super-resolution and computes environmental risk metrics including erosion, water flow, and a composite Site Intelligence Score.
3
MIT
site-intelligence-mcp
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@site-intelligence-mcpHow suitable is 38.42, 27.14 for an apiary? Check May specifically."
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Site Intelligence MCP
Score any geographic coordinate for ecological and agricultural land suitability, directly from your AI coding agent.
Analyses satellite and climate data around a point and returns a weighted suitability score with a per-metric breakdown: vegetation health, water access, precipitation, terrain, cropland proximity, urbanisation pressure, climate, and distance to infrastructure.
Built for agtech, precision agriculture, ecological field research, conservation planning, environmental consulting and apiculture.
Install
Requires a key for the Site Intelligence API on RapidAPI (free tier available).
Claude Code
claude mcp add site-intelligence \
--env RAPIDAPI_KEY=your_key_here \
-- uvx site-intelligence-mcpClaude Desktop / Cursor / Windsurf
Add to your MCP config:
{
"mcpServers": {
"site-intelligence": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["site-intelligence-mcp"],
"env": {
"RAPIDAPI_KEY": "your_key_here"
}
}
}
}Related MCP server: SkyFi MCP Server
Usage
Ask your agent in plain language:
How suitable is 38.42, 27.14 for an apiary? Check May specifically.
Compare these three coordinates for a reforestation site and tell me which has the best water access.
Tool
site_score
Parameter | Type | Default | Notes |
| float | required | -90 to 90 |
| float | required | -180 to 180 |
| int |
| Analysis radius, 200-5000 |
| int | (none) | 1-12 for a seasonal view; omit for annual |
|
|
|
|
detail defaults to "summary" deliberately: tool results are spent from the
model's context window, and the full diagnostic payload runs to several KB.
Ask for "full" only when you need the underlying values.
Without uv
pip install site-intelligence-mcpthen use site-intelligence-mcp as the command with no args.
Configuration
Variable | Required | Default |
| yes | — |
| no |
|
Get a key from the Site Intelligence API listing.
Limits
Not a weather forecast and not a property-value estimate.
Resolution is bounded by the underlying satellite sources; very small radii will not resolve individual parcels.
Rate limits and quota follow your RapidAPI plan.
Licence
MIT
Available Tools
1 toolsite_scoreA
Score a geographic coordinate for ecological and agricultural land suitability.
Analyses satellite and climate data for the area around a point and returns a weighted suitability score plus per-metric breakdown: vegetation health, water access, precipitation, terrain, cropland proximity, urbanisation pressure, climate, and distance to infrastructure.
Use for site selection and land assessment — agtech, precision agriculture, ecological field research, conservation planning, environmental consulting, apiculture. Not a weather forecast and not a property-value estimate.
Each call runs a live satellite computation and takes roughly 25-40 seconds; a smaller radius_m is faster. Prefer one call over several exploratory ones.
Args: lat: Latitude, -90 to 90. lon: Longitude, -180 to 180. radius_m: Analysis radius in metres, 200 to 5000. Defaults to 2000. month: Month 1-12 to evaluate seasonally. Omit for an annual view. detail: "summary" returns scores only; "full" adds per-metric raw diagnostics, which is considerably larger.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes | ||
| month | No | ||
| detail | No | summary | |
| radius_m | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that each call runs a live satellite computation and takes 25-40 seconds, which is a significant behavioral trait. It also mentions that the 'full' detail option is 'considerably larger', implying a larger response. This adds value beyond the schema, though it does not detail side effects or requirements, but for a read-only analysis tool, this is sufficient.
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 purpose in the first sentence, followed by use cases, performance notes, and parameter explanations. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value; the parameter section could be more concise, but the overall structure is front-loaded and efficient.
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 tool has 5 parameters, all explained in detail, an output schema exists (so return values are known from the schema), and it covers key context like performance and use cases. It lacks explicit mention of error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., valid coordinates), but given the output schema and comprehensive description, it is largely complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain lat and lon as a point, radius_m as the analysis radius, month as seasonal evaluation with an annual default, and detail as summary vs full with raw diagnostics. This adds meaning beyond the basic type definitions, though it does not give specific units for some metrics or explain the 'full' diagnostics in detail. The baseline for 0% coverage is higher, and this description meets it well.
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 the tool scores a geographic coordinate for ecological and agricultural land suitability, with a specific verb ('score') and resource (geographic coordinate). It lists the per-metric breakdown, distinguishing it from potential weather or property tools, and its use cases. This is specific and goes beyond a tautology, making it easy for an agent to understand the tool's core function.
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 lists use cases (site selection, agtech, conservation) and states what it is NOT (not a weather forecast, not property-value estimate), which helps with when-to-use and when-not-to-use. It also advises on performance (prefer one call over several, smaller radius for speed), giving practical usage guidance that is not available from the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
v0.1.3- First observed
site_score
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Scored across 1 tool
Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap with other tools. The tool has a clear, singular purpose of scoring a coordinate for suitability.
Naming Consistency4/5
The single tool name 'site_score' is descriptive and follows a readable noun_verb convention. However, with only one tool there is no established pattern to evaluate consistency across the set.
Tool Count2/5
A single tool feels too thin for an MCP server focused on site intelligence. While the tool itself is substantive, the server's scope would reasonably include at least a few related operations, such as batch comparison or historical analysis.
Completeness2/5
The server only offers live scoring of one coordinate at a time. Obvious gaps include no way to compare multiple candidate sites, no batch processing, and no persistence or historical trend analysis, which are common needs in site selection and land assessment.
Maintenance
ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
Verifiable Earth ground truth for AI agents: water, hazard, ground stability, resource, with proof.
Weather, climate, terrain, fire and flood risk data for any point or polygon on Earth. Free tier.
Pay-per-use weather, environment, finance, and on-chain intelligence tools for AI agents via x402.
Geospatial AI MCP server — satellite imagery, embeddings, weather, GNS governance
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to search, compare pricing, and order satellite imagery from 150+ satellites across 12+ providers via natural language.MIT
- FlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to query Earth observation data, satellite imagery, active fires, and weather via natural language, returning interactive maps and briefs.12-
- AlicenseAqualityFmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to assess any parcel for micro-farm viability (climate, water, farmland context, access, flood risk) and dwelling feasibility, and to find real land for sale from free, keyless public data sources.51MIT