Skip to main content
Glama

Maptiler

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Geocode

geocode
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Geocode [address]" / "find coordinates of [place]" / "lat lng for [city]" / "search OpenStreetMap-backed places" — forward geocoding via MapTiler (OpenStreetMap-curated). Returns ranked candidates with lat/lng, address components, and feature IDs for re-lookup via geocode_by_id. Alternative to Mapbox/Google geocoders when you want OSM data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bboxNo
limitNo
queryYes
typesNo
countryNo
languageNo
proximityNo
fuzzyMatchNo
autocompleteNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "query": "Eiffel Tower, Paris"
+  },
+  {
+    "fuzzyMatch": true,
+    "limit": 5,
+    "proximity": "48.8566,2.3522",
+    "query": "coffee shop"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that results are ranked and include lat/lng, address components, and feature IDs, aligning with the annotations. No contradictions.

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 description is a single paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, usage patterns, and relationship to sibling. It is front-loaded with examples. Could be broken into bullet points but is reasonably concise.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality and return fields (candidates with components). It mentions re-lookup but lacks details on errors, empty results, or parameter combinations beyond examples. Adequate but incomplete.

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%, so description must compensate. It illustrates query, limit, proximity, fuzzyMatch via examples, but bbox, types, country, language, autocomplete are not explained. This leaves significant gaps.

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 clearly defines the tool as forward geocoding via MapTiler (OSM data), with explicit usage examples and differentiation from alternatives like Mapbox/Google. It also links to sibling tool geocode_by_id.

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 states it's an alternative to Mapbox/Google when OSM data is desired, and mentions that results can be used with geocode_by_id. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling geocode_reverse or coordinates_convert.

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

All Maptiler toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap, e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs deep_research all for data lookup, and multiple Polymarket tools. Descriptions are detailed enough to distinguish, but the set is confusing.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is highly inconsistent: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), verb_noun (resolve_entity), underscores (ask_pipeworx), and domain-specific prefixes (polymarket_). No consistent pattern across tools.

Tool Count2/5

With 38 tools spanning geospatial, data lookup, prediction markets, memory, feedback, etc., the count is too high for a coherent server. Many tools are one-off and unrelated to the server's name (Maptiler).

Completeness2/5

The tool set covers many areas but lacks obvious gaps for each domain (e.g., MapTiler only has 4 tools). The overall surface is a collection of unrelated features, not a cohesive domain, so completeness is poor for any single purpose.

Resources