jshis-mcp

get_surface_ground_amplification

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve surface ground velocity amplification and geomorphology for a WGS84 latitude and longitude to assess local earthquake hazard.

Instructions

Read surface ground velocity amplification and geomorphology at a WGS84 point.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "latitude": "<latitude>",
      "longitude": "<longitude>"
    },
    "name": "get_surface_ground_amplification"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`latitude`	Yes
`longitude`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds the coordinate-frame requirement (WGS84 point) but says nothing about data sources, resolution, or coverage limits that openWorldHint implies. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (what is returned, where it applies) earns its place. It is arguably too terse rather than too long.

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?

For a two-parameter point-lookup tool with annotations and an output schema, this is close to enough, but with 0% parameter coverage the description should say more about coordinate semantics and what 'amplification' and 'geomorphology' return. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% — the two parameters have only min/max bounds and no descriptions. The phrase 'at a WGS84 point' conveys the coordinate system, but nothing ties latitude/longitude to order, units, or precision, so the description largely fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Read) and a specific resource (surface ground velocity amplification and geomorphology) at a specified input location. It is distinguishable from the hazard siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_earthquake_hazard or get_hazard_intensity. Only the implied 'call it for a point' context is present.

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

Deploy Server