MCP server for verifiable physical-world ground truth (water, hazard, ground stability, resource, space weather) from DeepMap AI, with Bitcoin-anchored provenance.
This is a thin-client proxy to a hosted DeepMap service. Tool schemas are present and properly structured with JSON Schema, but descriptions lack LLM-optimization guidance and parameter descriptions are sparse or missing. Most tools have 2-3 required parameters (lat/lon) but lack descriptions for optional parameters like depth_m, region, horizon_days, radius_km, and type. Error handling is absent, no guidance on what failures mean or how to recover. The server mirrors a hosted endpoint, which is architecturally sound, but the published client does not add value beyond proxying; it does not enrich schemas or add recovery hints. Naming is reasonable (verb_noun style: water_availability, seismic_hazard, ground_stability) but some names are domain-specific and could be clearer (e.g., 'verify' is vague, verify_claim_hash would be better). Output schemas are not documented in the code.
What DeepMap can answer now + coverage counts (public aggregate).
Has this Earth-science hypothesis been tested? Query the Null Museum + the Bitcoin-anchored hypothesis registry. A direct match returns the verdict + the positive control that proves the test was sensitive + the honest bound + the anchor -- so an agent never re-runs a dead idea.
Subsidence / void / karst / fault risk from verified observations.
The bundled five-question answer + one provenance record.
List DeepMap's documented nulls / bounds / retractions (the Null Museum), optionally by domain -- each with the positive control that makes it trustworthy. We carry our own retractions; that is the credibility.
Optional parameters lack descriptions. depth_m, region, horizon_days, radius_km, type, and domain are defined in schemas but have no descriptions explaining their purpose, valid ranges, or units. LLMs cannot infer whether depth_m is in meters, feet, or kilometers, or what region values are valid.
Output schemas are not documented. The code shows inputSchema for all tools but does not document what fields are returned, their types, or structure. Agents cannot plan downstream calls or extract required data without knowing the response format.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 49 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
Geothermal / mineral / gas / water indication (gated, low-confidence).
The Lab-as-an-API: run a REAL, bounded controlled test at a location and get an honest verdict. DeepMap fetches real data, runs a lock-in detection with a local-background null AND a positive control (a known reference line must be recovered, else UNTESTABLE). Free tier runs a synthetic demo; the live lab is the authenticated tier.
Seismic hazard via the public, outcome-excluded prediction ledger.
Live geomagnetic activity (Kp) as GIC / space-weather grid exposure.
Verify a claim hash / the ledger hash chain against the Bitcoin anchor.
Replenishable-water availability at a point. Free = public groundwater trend; paid adds a derived (non-locating) atlas indication.
No error handling or recovery guidance. The _remote() function proxies calls to the hosted API but does not document what errors can occur, how to interpret them, or what the agent should do next. A failed API call returns raw error without actionable guidance.
Tool name 'verify' is ambiguous. Does it verify a claim, a hash, a ledger, or a Bitcoin anchor? Rename to 'verify_claim_hash' or 'verify_ledger_anchor' to clarify intent before the LLM reads the description.
Tool descriptions are domain-jargon-heavy and assume geophysics expertise. Phrases like 'outcome-excluded prediction ledger', 'lock-in detection', 'Null Museum', and 'positive control' are not explained for LLMs unfamiliar with Earth science. Descriptions should be 50-200 chars and self-contained, not require external domain knowledge.