Skip to main content
Glama

geoagentic

by app.geoagentic

slovenia-cadastral-deep

Deep parcel and building analysis for Slovenia using GURS WFS data. Returns zoning, actual use, heritage protection, road access, buildings on parcel, and utilities.

USE FOR:

  • "Analyze parcel 3086 in Ljubljana center"

  • "Find buildable parcels ~500m² in Ljubljana"

  • "What buildings are on this parcel?"

  • "Find parcels near these coordinates"

  • "Get full details on building 1234"

NOT FOR: simple parcel lookup → use slovenia-cadastre instead (faster, lighter). NOT FOR: spatial/zoning map queries → use slovenia-wfs-expert instead.

SEARCH MODES — pick ONE per call:

  1. PARCEL BY NUMBER (requires --parcel AND --ko) → --parcel 3086 --ko 1725

  2. LOCATION SEARCH (requires --lat AND --lon, or --location) → --lat 46.058 --lon 14.501 --radius 100 → --location "Tivoli Park Ljubljana" --radius 200

  3. BUILDING BY NUMBER (requires --building, optionally --ko) → --building 1234 --ko 1728

  4. COMMUNITY SEARCH (requires at least --community or --size) → --community LJUBLJANA --size 500 --buildable

COMMON KO IDs: 1725 = Ljubljana center 1728 = Ljubljana Šiška 1740 = Ljubljana Bežigrad 2131 = Maribor

NOTE: This tool makes multiple WFS calls per result and can be slow (10-30s). Use --limit to keep response times reasonable.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
koNoKO ID (cadastral municipality). Required with --parcel or --building.
latNoLatitude for location search. Requires --lon.
lonNoLongitude for location search. Requires --lat.
sizeNoApproximate parcel size in m² to search for.
limitNoMax results to return (default: 10). Keep low to avoid timeouts.
parcelNoParcel number. Requires --ko.
radiusNoSearch radius in metres for location search (default: 100).
workersNoParallel WFS workers (default: 5). Reduce if hitting rate limits.
buildingNoBuilding number. Optionally combine with --ko.
locationNoPlace name to geocode instead of --lat/--lon. Example: 'Tivoli Park Ljubljana'.
buildableNoIf true, return only buildable parcels.
communityNoCommunity name in uppercase, e.g. LJUBLJANA or MARIBOR.
toleranceNoSize tolerance fraction for --size search (default: 0.1 = ±10%).
built_yearNoFilter buildings by construction year.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it notes the tool makes multiple WFS calls per result, can be slow (10-30s), and recommends using --limit to avoid timeouts. It also implies the tool is read-only by listing analyses and not mentioning mutations.

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 sections, bullet points, and clear delineation of search modes. It is front-loaded with purpose and output, though slightly verbose; however, every part adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists the types of information returned (zoning, buildings, etc.). It covers all 14 parameters, search modes, examples, and performance notes, making it comprehensive for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning by grouping parameters into search modes, providing usage examples, and listing common KO IDs. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Deep parcel and building analysis for Slovenia using GURS WFS data' and lists specific outputs like zoning, actual use, and heritage protection. It differentiates from siblings by noting that slovenia-cadastral-simple is faster and lighter, and slovenia-wfs-expert is for spatial/zoning map queries.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly provides 'USE FOR' examples and 'NOT FOR' exclusions with alternative tool names. It also defines four search modes with required parameters, making it clear when to use each mode.

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

All geoagentic toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (geocoding vs routing vs POI search). However, the multiple Slovenian cadastral tools (simple, deep, wfs-expert) overlap in functionality, potentially confusing an agent on which to use for a given task.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tools within subgroups like 'geo-*' follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, and 'slovenia-*' tools use a noun_adjective pattern. However, across the whole set there is no unified naming convention, mixing prefixes like 'eu-', 'events-', 'hikes-', and 'hostel-'.

Tool Count4/5

With 16 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal range (3-15) but still well-scoped. Each tool addresses a distinct geographic need, although the breadth across many domains (transit, cadastre, weather, hostels) feels a bit broad.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core geographic operations (geocoding, routing, POI, isochrones, reverse geocoding) plus specialized Slovenian data and travel amenities. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of general worldwide POI beyond OSM or event discovery beyond Luma, but overall it is comprehensive for its domain.

Resources