Skip to main content
Glama

gisgp

by io.github.uponex

bundle_migration_readiness

PAID (100 credits) — migration-readiness report comparing two FeatureServer layers: schema diff, coded-value domains, and field types for both. Replaces compare_schemas + extract_domains×2 + check_field_types×2. Requires Authorization: Bearer and sufficient credits balance.

Returns JSON: {ok, schema_diff, domains_a, domains_b, fields_a, fields_b,
ready, blockers} — ready is False and blockers lists the reasons if the
schema diff finds added/removed/changed fields or a geometry mismatch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
token_aNo
token_bNo
service_url_aYes
service_url_bYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the cost (100 credits), authentication requirement, and the precise behavior of the ready and blockers fields when schema mismatches occur. This goes beyond typical descriptions.

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?

Two information-dense paragraphs with front-loaded cost and purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, replacement, auth/cost, return JSON structure, and condition for ready/blockers. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers purpose, replacement, auth, cost, return format, and ready/blockers logic. However, it omits explanation of token_a/token_b parameters and their relationship to the Authorization header, which is a significant gap for a complex bundle tool with no annotations.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. It implicitly refers to 'two FeatureServer layers' but does not name service_url_a/service_url_b or clarify the purpose of token_a/token_b, especially given the Authorization: Bearer requirement. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'migration-readiness report comparing two FeatureServer layers: schema diff, coded-value domains, and field types for both.' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings by being a bundle that replaces multiple existing tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'Replaces compare_schemas + extract_domains×2 + check_field_types×2', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. Also mentions the prerequisites: Authorization header and sufficient credits balance.

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

All gisgp 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many assess_* composite tools (datacenter, ev_charging, renewable, telecom, due_diligence) share the same building blocks of grid proximity, land cover, and terrain, making their boundaries fuzzy. assess_property_hazard_x402 also duplicates assess_property_hazard with only a payment-method difference, and bundle_* tools intentionally overlap with the free primitives they replace.

Naming Consistency3/5

There is a mix of verb_noun tools (query_features, geocode_address), noun-first geometry tools (centroids_geojson, envelope_geojson), and inconsistent _geojson suffix usage (buffer_geojson, fix_geometry, geometry_stats). The assess_* and bundle_* prefixes offer some grouping, but no single naming pattern is followed across the set.

Tool Count1/5

With 85 tools, the surface is extreme for an MCP server and far exceeds the typical well-scoped 3-15 range. Many tools are convenience bundles or variants that could be consolidated, making the count a significant usability burden.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers a broad range of GIS tasks: format conversions, GeoJSON analysis, FeatureServer query/inspection, geocoding, site assessment, and sharing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no Excel-to-GeoJSON, no FeatureServer update/delete), but most missing functionality can be worked around by chaining existing tools.

Resources