Fetch actual feature records (attributes + geometry) from a FeatureServer layer.
Free preview capped at 50 records (WHERE filter + chosen fields). Returns JSON:
{returned, total, truncated, geojson, note}. Full unlimited export is a paid operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| token | No | ||
| where | No | 1=1 | |
| out_fields | No | * | |
| service_url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation returns a JSON with specific fields (returned, total, truncated, geojson, note) and that it is a fetch operation (not destructive). It also mentions the preview cap and paid export.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences: first states purpose, second clarifies the free preview cap, third describes the return format. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no superfluous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers the main aspects: purpose, limitations, and return format. It could explain the token parameter or provide more parameter detail, but it is sufficiently complete for a data fetching tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that where and out_fields relate to filtering and field selection, and mentions the limit implicitly via the 50-record cap. However, service_url and token are not explained, providing only partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches feature records (attributes + geometry) from a FeatureServer layer. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like count_features or query_statistics by focusing on actual records.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the free preview cap at 50 records and that full export is a paid operation, guiding the agent on when to use this tool (previews) vs. alternative paid options. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.