Skip to main content
Glama

Atlasly

Export Site Context

export_site_context
Read-onlyIdempotent

Purpose: retrieve source geometry and prepare a portable site-context file. When to use: when the user wants OpenStreetMap buildings, roads, water, green space and land use worldwide or available UK flood/heritage geometry around a location for QGIS, Rhino or CAD. Returns: actual GeoJSON, SVG or 2D DXF file contents, or a ZIP containing all three from one retrieval, source preview, per-layer coverage, and a companion manifest with CRS, local origin, attribution and limitations. DXF is local WGS84 UTM metres, not longitude/latitude; polygon holes are separate closed polylines. Limitations: community OSM geometry is not a survey; no inferred heights, terrain, DWG, 3D or desktop execution; basemap geometry is generalized and clipped to the request area; other sources retain touching features by default; an optional supplied outline can clip geometry with explicit omissions and an original-source audit companion. England flood checks the address point, not all nearby polygons. Missing layers remain explicit and can produce a partial export. Parameter guidance: supply address including city/country, prior site_ref, or user-supplied coordinates {lat,lng} with country_code. Coordinate mode does not verify the address or planning jurisdiction and only retrieves regional context. Pass a two-letter country code for non-UK address lookup and every supplied point (for example in, us, fr, au), selected layers, format and optional 250–1000m radius/title. Do not treat missing geometry as a clear planning result. Chaining: every response returns site_ref; pass it unchanged into another Atlasly tool to reuse the canonical site, coordinates, boundary confidence, LPA, evidence links, and project context.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNo
formatYes
layersYes
addressNo
boundaryNoUser-supplied simple WGS84 outline inside the search radius. Selects whole touching features by default; boundary_mode clip intersects geometry. Does not verify ownership. No holes or self-intersections.
site_refNoCanonical site_ref returned by any previous Atlasly tool. Pass it unchanged to chain the same resolved site into this call; address, search_area, or project_id will be filled from it when omitted.
coordinatesNoUser-supplied WGS84 point. Provide an explicit country_code; omit site_ref. No address lookup or jurisdiction verification is performed.
country_codeNoISO two-letter country code. Required for non-UK addresses and all supplied coordinates; defaults to gb only for legacy address calls. Preserve the returned site_ref country.
boundary_modeNoDefaults to retaining whole touching features. clip intersects geometry with the supplied outline; requires boundary. Planar WGS84, not a legal boundary/survey or completeness check.
diagram_styleNoSVG display preset only; exported CAD/GIS geometry is unchanged. Figure-ground preserves courtyard holes; street diagram shows sampled road geometry, not routing.
radius_metersNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNo
statusYes
detailsNo
messageNo
sourcesYes
headlineYes
site_refYes
retryableNo
error_codeNo
atlasly_linkYes
error_sourceNo
human_messageNo
key_data_pointsYes
top_constraintsYes
confidence_notesYes
executive_summaryYes
next_best_actionsYes
top_opportunitiesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: it discloses exact return contents (GeoJSON/SVG/DXF/ZIP, preview, manifest), CRS behavior (DXF in local WGS84 UTM metres), geometry handling (polygon holes as separate closed polylines), limitations (community OSM data, no inferred heights/terrain/DWG/3D), and partial-export behavior. This is far richer than the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations alone.

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 long but well-structured with explicit sections (Purpose, When to use, Returns, Limitations, Parameter guidance, Chaining). It is front-loaded and each section adds useful information, though a few sentences could be tightened without losing meaning.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the 11-parameter schema, nested site_ref, output schema, and annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It covers return format, coordinate-system caveats, partial-export behavior, chaining, and limitations not captured by structured fields.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 55%, so the description must compensate. It does so for the key parameters: address usage, site_ref chaining, coordinates with country_code, layer/format selection, radius/title, and coordinate-mode caveats. It does not fully explain boundary_mode and diagram_style, but the schema provides descriptions for those, so the gap is limited.

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: retrieve source geometry and prepare a portable site-context file. It clearly identifies the geometry sources, supported formats, and intended downstream applications (QGIS, Rhino, CAD), making it distinguishable from sibling tools like export_site_boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives explicit usage guidance: when the user wants OSM buildings, roads, water, green space, land use, or UK flood/heritage geometry for QGIS/Rhino/CAD. It includes parameter-specific guidance and chaining instructions, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools such as export_site_boundary or generate_site_map.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources