Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cenogram-mcp-server

cenogram-mcp-server

Official
by cenogram
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_transaction_subsurface

Read-only

Check whether a transaction's land overlaps mining terrain or a groundwater reservoir, returning per-plot status, overlap share, and object details.

Instructions

Use it to see whether one transaction's land overlaps a mining terrain or a major groundwater reservoir: per linked plot overlapping either - the mining-terrain status ('active' | 'former') with mineral class ('subsidence' = extraction with surface deformation, the actual mining-damage risk; 'surface' = open-pit, mostly local impact; 'fluid' = borehole extraction; 'other'), the reservoir status ('documented' | 'undocumented'), the share of the plot inside each, and per-object details. A mining terrain is a legally defined zone of anticipated mining influence with an approximate mapped location: an intersection is an advisory signal to verify with the competent mining-supervision authority, not a legal determination. A reservoir's extent alone imposes NO restriction; one would come only from a protection zone, which is not published here. For a parcel with no transaction, get_parcel_report lists the same objects. Land overlapping neither layer returns nothing - absence of data is never an assertion of safety. Cost: 4 tokens (refunded when there is no subsurface data).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
transactionIdNo
transaction_idNoTransaction id (UUID) from a search result. This or transactionId is required.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.18.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / transactionId
      Added value: +{
+  "pattern": "^[0-9a-f]{8}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{12}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / transaction_id / description
      Previous value: -"Transaction id (UUID) from a search_transactions / search_by_area / search_by_polygon result."New value: +"Transaction id (UUID) from a search result. This or transactionId is required."
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "transaction_id"
-]
  2. Addedv0.12.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations: warns that a mining-terrain intersection is advisory only and must be verified with the mining authority, that a reservoir extent alone imposes no restriction, that absence of results is not an assertion of safety, and that the call costs 4 tokens with a refund on empty data. This is exactly the context an agent needs before presenting the result.

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 usage and cost statement is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence carries interpretive value (status enums, legal caveats). It is dense and runs long, but almost nothing could be cut without losing a meaningful caveat.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the return shape (per-plot overlap, mining status, mineral class semantics, reservoir status, share inside each, per-object details) and covers the all-important negative-result semantics. An agent can call and interpret this correctly without further documentation.

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 50% — only transaction_id carries a schema description, and its purpose is obvious from the UUID pattern and the 'one transaction's land' phrasing. The description adds no format, sourcing, or fallback guidance for the two aliased ID parameters, so it neither compensates nor harms.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: checks whether one transaction's land overlaps a mining terrain or groundwater reservoir, and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_transaction_flood or get_transaction_landslide by naming the exact layers covered.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative for parcels without a transaction (get_parcel_report), which is the key routing decision. It does not, however, differentiate against the other transaction_* siblings (flood, heritage, nature, etc.), leaving the agent to infer that those cover different layers.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools