Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
surfer-mcp

surfer-mcp

by office31
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_cross_section

Generate a geological cross-section along a straight line through a grid, combining a location map with a profile for subsurface interpretation.

Instructions

Create a geological cross-section along a straight line through a grid.

The plot combines a location map (with the section line) and a profile below it.

Args: grid_file: Input .grd grid. start_x: Section start X in map units. start_y: Section start Y in map units. end_x: Section end X in map units. end_y: Section end Y in map units. title: Section title, e.g. "A-A'". style: Map style behind the section: "color", "lines" or "filled". vertical_exaggeration: Vertical scale factor (1.0 = true scale). x_label: Horizontal axis label. y_label: Vertical axis label. output_image: Optional export path (png, jpg, pdf, tif, svg, emf). save_plot: Optional .srf plot path. save_profile_data: Optional tab-delimited .dat path for the sampled profile values.

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": {
      "grid_file": "<grid_file>",
      "start_x": "<start_x>",
      "start_y": "<start_y>",
      "end_x": "<end_x>",
      "end_y": "<end_y>"
    },
    "name": "create_cross_section"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
end_xYes
end_yYes
styleNocolor
titleNoCross-section
start_xYes
start_yYes
x_labelNoDistance (m)
y_labelNoElevation (m)
grid_fileYes
save_plotNo
output_imageNo
save_profile_dataNo
vertical_exaggerationNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful context beyond the schema: the plot composites a location map with a profile, and output can be exported in many formats or persisted as .srf/.dat files. However, it never says whether this mutates application state, requires an open document, or whether existing files at the given paths are overwritten.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and output shape, then an ordered Args block that mirrors the schema ordering. Nearly every line earns its place; the only redundancy is restating parameter names that the schema already titles, which is acceptable given 0% schema coverage.

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?

For a 13-parameter tool with no annotations, the description documents all inputs and their semantics, and an output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. What is missing is operational context: prerequisites, side effects, and guidance among the sibling map-creation tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must supply all meaning, and it largely does: it gives units for coordinates ('in map units'), explains vertical_exaggeration ('1.0 = true scale'), enumerates the meaning of the style enum values, and lists accepted output_image formats plus the tab-delimited nature of save_profile_data. Only grid_file ('Input .grd grid') and save_plot ('Optional .srf plot path') remain terse.

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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a geological cross-section') plus the geometric constraint ('along a straight line through a grid'), and the second sentence describes the composite output (location map plus profile), so an agent knows exactly what will be produced. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like create_contour_map or create_surface_map, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the tool is for slicing a grid along a line, and the presence of save_profile_data hints at extracting profile values. There is no statement of when to prefer this over create_surface_map/create_contour_map, no prerequisite about Surfer being running or a document being open, and no exclusions.

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