EasyTerritory MCP

Grow Territory from Seed

seed_build

Grows one territory outward from a seed {longitude, latitude} over a part layer until it holds a target: {type: location_count, value: N} or {type: metric_sum, field: , value: X}, counted from an ingested point layer. Adds the territory as a leaf of tal_id, or as a new alignment. Fit is closest: target_status is reached, closest_under, closest_over, frontier_exhausted, or max_parts_reached, with SEED_TARGET_UNDERSHOT/OVERSHOT warnings and the difference. Parts already in that alignment are never taken; the territory grows around them (blocked_part_count, seed_offset_km), and a seed inside an assigned part returns SEED_PART_ASSIGNED. part_scope=explicit with part_filter confines growth to an area. One seed per call. An undeclared metric field returns UNDECLARED_FIELD. Returns a task with created_territory and ts_handle; the open map repaints with map_session_id.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`seed`	Yes
`tal_id`	No
`target`	Yes
`user_id`	No
`part_ids`	No
`max_parts`	No
`tal_label`	No
`ts_handle`	No
`part_layer`	No
`part_scope`	No
`part_filter`	No
`point_layer`	No
`map_session_id`	No
`territory_name`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 9, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / guidance_handle

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "Guidance Handle"
-}

First observedSep 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses target_status outcomes, warning conditions, blocked-part behavior, seed_offset_km, specific errors like SEED_PART_ASSIGNED and UNDECLARED_FIELD, and that it returns a task with created_territory and ts_handle. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 dense but front-loaded and contains no irrelevant filler; every sentence conveys operational detail. It is somewhat run-on and compact for the amount of information, but it remains purposeful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complex nested schema and output schema, the description covers the critical behavior: target types, statuses, warnings, key errors, result task shape, and map repaint. It is nearly complete, though some parameter semantics and explicit sibling guidance are missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage across 14 parameters, the description compensates for key nested inputs such as seed {longitude, latitude}, target types, part_layer, part_scope=explicit with part_filter, and max_parts. However, several parameters like user_id, part_ids, tal_label, territory_name, and ts_handle are not explained, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: grows one territory outward from a seed over a part layer until it meets a target. It names the target forms and key constraints like one seed per call and block avoidance, making it clearly distinct from part-based or automated build siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when the tool is appropriate by describing seed-based growth and target-driven stopping, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as auto_build, direct_build, or create_territory_from_parts. It provides some operational constraints but no explicit when-not guidance.

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

All EasyTerritory MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?