Convert a Shapefile ZIP (base64-encoded .zip with .shp/.dbf/.shx[/.prj]) to a GeoJSON FeatureCollection. Reprojects to WGS84 if a .prj says otherwise.
Returns JSON: {geojson: {...}, reprojection_notice: str|null}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shapefile_zip_base64 | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: reprojection to WGS84 if .prj indicates otherwise, and the return JSON structure with geojson and reprojection_notice. It does not cover error handling, size limits, or permission requirements, but the core behavior is clear.
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 two sentences long, each serving a clear purpose: defining input and output, and noting a crucial processing detail (reprojection). No redundant or irrelevant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 moderate complexity (conversion with reprojection), the description covers the input format, reprojection behavior, and return structure. It does not mention potential errors, file size limitations, or the expected structure of the GeoJSON, but the existence of an output schema (implied by the JSON return) reduces the need for that detail. Overall, it is complete enough for effective use.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains the single parameter 'shapefile_zip_base64' as a base64-encoded .zip containing .shp/.dbf/.shx/.prj files. This adds essential meaning beyond the type 'string', fully compensating for the missing schema description.
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 converts a Shapefile ZIP to GeoJSON FeatureCollection, and specifies the required files (.shp/.dbf/.shx/.prj). It also mentions reprojection to WGS84, distinguishing it from sibling conversion tools like csv_to_geojson or geojson_to_shapefile.
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 implicitly guides usage by specifying the input format (Shapefile ZIP) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like geojson_to_shapefile or other conversion tools. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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.