Skip to main content
Glama

gisgp

by io.github.uponex

discover_open_geodata

Keyword search across ArcGIS Hub Open Data — real public FeatureServer/MapServer datasets from government/organization ArcGIS Online portals worldwide. Returns real service_url values usable directly with query_features/count_features/rest_explore/compare_schemas. Free, no API key. Not a universal open-data search (ArcGIS Hub coverage only — see tool note). Returns JSON: {ok, query, count, results, source, note}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions free usage, no API key, and return JSON structure. However, it omits details like rate limits, pagination, error handling, or behavior when no results are found. Adds some context but not comprehensive.

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 reasonably concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded. It uses line breaks and a bullet-like list for the output JSON. It could be slightly tighter, but it remains informative without being verbose.

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 tool is low complexity with 2 parameters and an output schema. The description covers the main purpose and output fields but lacks details on error handling, edge cases (e.g., no results), or parameter formatting. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 the description should explain parameters. It only implies 'query' via keyword search and does not mention 'limit'. No elaboration on default values, constraints, or usage. This leaves the agent underinformed about parameter semantics.

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 specifies the tool performs keyword search across ArcGIS Hub Open Data, returning real service URLs. It distinguishes itself by noting it's not a universal open-data search, and it lists compatible sibling tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance: it states when to use (for ArcGIS Hub open data search), how results are used (with specific tools like query_features), and limitations ('Not a universal open-data search'). It also notes no API key required, aiding tool selection.

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