Get GeoJSON map data for visualizing associations by French department. Returns GeoJSON FeatureCollection with department center coordinates and association counts. Useful for creating interactive maps or geographic visualizations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It clearly states the output is a GeoJSON FeatureCollection with department data, which is a read-only operation. There are no contradictions, and the description is transparent about what the tool returns.
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 long, each adding value: purpose and return type, details of the data, and a common use case. There is no redundancy or unnecessary 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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (GeoJSON FeatureCollection with coordinates and counts). It does not cover edge cases or error handling, but for a simple data retrieval tool, this is sufficient.
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 tool has no parameters, so the description need not add parameter semantics. Schema coverage is 100% (no parameters to describe). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to provide additional parameter context.
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 explicitly states it retrieves GeoJSON map data for visualizing associations by French department, specifying the return type (FeatureCollection) and content (center coordinates and association counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_department_stats (which returns statistics) and search_near_location (which returns associations by location).
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 tool is useful for creating interactive maps or geographic visualizations, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to avoid confusion.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource and action, and several descriptions explicitly disambiguate adjacent tools. The only mild risk is between search_associations/search_premium_associations and contact_association/submit_contact_request, but the descriptions give enough context to avoid misselection.
All 18 tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern, e.g. get_association, search_associations, publish_association_update, report_unmet_demand. There is no mixing of camelCase, arbitrary verbs, or inconsistent styles.
18 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but the server covers a broad domain: search, detailed records, statistics, volunteering, contact, updates, and feedback. Each tool has a distinct role, so the count feels somewhat heavy but justified rather than bloated.
The registry surface is well covered: multiple search modes, authoritative association details, subsidies, similar/RUP/health subsets, departmental and national stats, and a way to contact or update associations. Minor gaps such as no direct email/phone lookup and no creation/deletion of registry records keep it from a perfect score.
