Skip to main content
Glama

DaedalMap Administrative Boundaries (loc_id to polygon)

by com.daedalmap

Resolve loc_id Scope

resolve_loc_id_scope
Read-only

Strict hierarchy traversal. Given one stored parent loc_id and target admin level, returns descendants from that coherent parent chain. This is not the mixed-vintage latest-per-depth point resolver and must not bridge release seams. Use it before shape exports such as every county in a selected parent scope. No natural-language decoding is performed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bboxNoOptional minLon,minLat,maxLon,maxLat filter.
limitNoMaximum rows to return inline. Counts are returned even when rows are truncated.
scopeNo
offsetNoOffset for preview paging.
count_onlyNoWhen true, return counts without loc_id rows.
request_idNoOptional caller-supplied request id for tracing.
admin_levelNoTarget level, such as admin_2, 2, county, or state.
parent_loc_idNoParent DaedalMap loc_id, such as USA or CAN-BC.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and description adds crucial constraints: strict hierarchy, no bridging release seams, no natural-language decoding. This goes beyond safe-read tagging to define traversal semantics.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with a clear one-line summary, and every sentence earns its place: purpose, disambiguation, use case, and exclusion. No 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 moderately complex tool with 8 params and no output schema, the description covers traversal logic, exclusions, and a concrete use case. However, it does not specify what a successful response contains (e.g., loc_id rows vs. counts), which the schema hints at but doesn't fully clarify. Slightly short of complete.

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 coverage is 88% and describes most parameters (parent_loc_id, admin_level, bbox, limit, offset, count_only). The description only reinforces core params but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Strict hierarchy traversal' of loc_ids, returning descendants from a 'coherent parent chain.' Excludes the alternative 'mixed-vintage latest-per-depth point resolver,' clearly distinguishing from siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('before shape exports such as every county in a selected parent scope') and when not to ('must not bridge release seams'), also naming the alternative resolver.

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

All DaedalMap Administrative Boundaries (loc_id to polygon) 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: discovery (get_catalog, get_pack), geometry retrieval (get_geometry), hierarchy (loc_id_info, resolve_loc_id_scope), relationship analysis (compare_geographies), preflight (check_geometry), export estimation and creation (estimate_geometry_package, create_geometry_export), job status (get_job_status), and help (get_tool_help). Even closely related tools like check_geometry and estimate_geometry_package address different concerns (shape availability vs export artifact), leaving no ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_geometry, compare_geographies, create_geometry_export, estimate_geometry_package, get_catalog, get_geometry, get_job_status, get_pack, get_tool_help, resolve_loc_id_scope). However, 'loc_id_info' breaks the pattern by being a noun phrase rather than a verb action, causing a minor deviation from the otherwise uniform convention.

Tool Count5/5

With 11 tools, the server covers the key operations for administrative boundary data—discovery, geometry retrieval, hierarchy navigation, comparison, export, and job management—without overreach. Each tool is necessary for a coherent workflow, and the count fits well within the typical 3-15 range for a domain-specific MCP server.

Completeness5/5

The tool set effectively covers the full lifecycle needed for administrative boundary use: discovery (catalog/pack), preflight checks, geometry retrieval, hierarchical navigation, relationship analysis, export estimation/creation, and job status. It includes essential utilities like get_tool_help for onboarding. No obvious gaps exist for the server's purpose; if anything, it is notably thorough for read/export operations.

Resources