Skip to main content
Glama

geoagentic

by app.geoagentic

slovenia-wfs-expert

Multi-endpoint Slovenian WFS Explorer. Dynamically browses and runs spatial bounding box queries against national geographic catalogs. Handles cadastral translation and matches zoning codes.

COORDINATE SYSTEMS: Automatically accepts WGS84 coordinates OR resolves parcel numbers via GURS Cadastre (EPSG:3794).

ENDPOINTS:

  • '1': Slovenian Cadastral Portal (GURS KN)

  • '2': Slovenian Municipal Spatial Planning & Zoning (MNVP PA)

  • '3': Slovenian Cadastre of Economic Infrastructure (GURS KGI)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
koNo4-digit Cadastral Municipality identifier code used to resolve parcel boundaries.
latNoLatitude coordinate value (WGS84) to define the search center.
lonNoLongitude coordinate value (WGS84) to define the search center.
listNoList all default registered Slovenian geographic service endpoints.
layerNoComma-separated string of numbers or exact target layer identifiers to query (e.g., '3,5'). Use 'all' if total count is low.
bufferNoSearch bounding box half-size distance offset specified in decimal degree parameters.
parcelNoOfficial parcel identifier code string within the specified municipality.
buildingNoUnique building designator index code number mapped within the local municipality.
discoverNoQuery the remote endpoint capabilities and list all available geospatial layers.
endpointNoTarget reference code ('1', '2', '3') or a raw public WFS gateway service URL string.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It discloses coordinate system handling (WGS84 and EPSG:3794) and endpoint mapping, which is helpful. However, it omits behavioral details such as error handling, performance characteristics, pagination, or authentication requirements. The provided info is moderate but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is highly concise—three short paragraphs with clear headings. It front-loads the purpose and then organizes coordinate systems and endpoints. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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?

For a complex tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and multiple endpoints, the description covers endpoints and coordinate systems well. However, it lacks example queries or expected output format, which would improve completeness for an agent. Still, it is fairly comprehensive given reliance on schema for parameter details.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context about coordinate systems and endpoints, but does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema. For instance, 'ko' is already described as a 4-digit code. The baseline is 3, and the description adds marginal value.

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 the tool is a multi-endpoint WFS explorer for Slovenia that handles cadastral translation and zoning codes. It uses specific verbs ('browses and runs') and identifies the resource ('spatial bounding box queries against national geographic catalogs'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like slovenia-cadastral-simple by emphasizing multi-endpoint capability and zoning code matching.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over its siblings (e.g., cadastral-specific tools). There is no discussion of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.

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