Skip to main content
Glama

Fetch Geographic Boundary

clipform_fetch_boundary
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a GeoJSON boundary polygon for a country, city, or region. Returns simplified GeoJSON ready to use as the 'boundary' prop in the Map composition.

mainlandOnly excludes small islands and overseas territories (e.g. Corsica for France, Hawaii for USA).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoType of place to search forcountry
queryYesPlace name (e.g. 'France', 'Paris', 'Tokyo', 'Brazil')
contextYesDescribe the user's underlying goal in one sentence - not the tool you're calling.
maxPointsNoMaximum points per polygon ring for simplification (default 500, lower = smaller payload)
mainlandOnlyNoKeep only the largest landmass, excluding small islands and overseas territories

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesResolved place name
geojsonYesThe Feature GeoJSON as a JSON string - use as the boundary prop in the Map composition
size_kbYesApproximate size of the returned GeoJSON in KB
geometry_typeYes
mainland_onlyYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Describe the user's underlying goal in one sentence - not the tool you're calling.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "query"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "query",
      +  "context"
      +]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
      +  "additionalProperties": false,
      +  "properties": {
      +    "geojson": {
      +      "description": "The Feature GeoJSON as a JSON string - use as the boundary prop in the Map composition",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "geometry_type": {
      +      "enum": [
      +        "Polygon",
      +        "MultiPolygon"
      +      ],
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "mainland_only": {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "name": {
      +      "description": "Resolved place name",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "size_kb": {
      +      "description": "Approximate size of the returned GeoJSON in KB",
      +      "type": "number"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "name",
      +    "geometry_type",
      +    "size_kb",
      +    "mainland_only",
      +    "geojson"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that the output is simplified GeoJSON and detailing how mainlandOnly affects the result with concrete examples (Corsica, Hawaii). It does not contradict the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: the first sentence communicates the core function and output usage, and the second clarifies a key parameter. No filler words; every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, output format, and the key parameter behavior. Minor gap: the description lists 'country, city, or region' but omits 'state' from the schema enum, though the schema itself clarifies this. Overall adequate for an agent to select and call the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for mainlandOnly by giving examples of excluded islands, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Keep only the largest landmass' phrasing. It also implies the effect of simplification in the first sentence, supplementing maxPoints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('GeoJSON boundary polygon'), and immediately states the output's purpose ('ready to use as the boundary prop in the Map composition'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from rendering, media, and form-management siblings by focusing on geographic boundary retrieval.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a GeoJSON boundary is needed for a Map composition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that no other sibling tool competes for this function. This is clear context without explicit when-not guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: form CRUD, node management, media upload/attach, rendering, search, and guidance retrieval are all separable. The main overlap is among the three render tools (clipform_generate_video, clipform_render_video_template, clipform_render_composition), but their descriptions include explicit disambiguation guidance, so an agent can correctly choose. clipform_get_guide and clipform_get_workflow are also similar but clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent clipform_<verb>_<noun> pattern throughout, e.g., clipform_create_form, clipform_add_node, clipform_update_node, clipform_delete_node. Minor deviations exist: clipform_whoami is not verb_noun, and get_more_tools lacks the clipform_ prefix, but these are edge cases and the overall convention is highly predictable.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is on the heavy side for a single MCP server. The server covers a broad domain (form creation, node editing, media management, video rendering, TTS, search, guidance, imports, responses), so the count is defensible, but it is above the typical well-scoped range and may add navigation overhead.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: create/read/update/delete forms and nodes, media upload/attach/delete, multiple render paths with status checking, TTS generation, music/image/video search, form import, response retrieval, and workflow/guide knowledge. The main gap is lack of a direct branching-logic editor (option-based branching is only in the dashboard), but the API consciously documents that limitation and the rest of the lifecycle is complete.