Skip to main content
Glama

DaedalMap Disaster and Geospatial Data

by com.daedalmap

Compare Geographic Identities

compare_geographies
Read-only

Detailed relationship tool for two geographic identities. Returns temporal validity, N-way successor context, topology, geodesic intersection area, and directional overlap shares when approved geometry exists. Use this after a compact point lookup when the caller asks whether two tiers/releases really contain or overlap one another. A point-chain seam is not proof of strict parentage. Use resolve_reference first for names or outside identifiers. No payment required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
as_ofNoISO date or year applied to both identities.
itemsNoBounded geography pairs to compare in one call.
batch_idNoOptional caller-supplied batch id for tracing.
left_as_ofNoOptional ISO date or year for the left identity; overrides as_of.
request_idNoOptional caller-supplied request id for tracing.
left_loc_idNoFirst DaedalMap loc_id.
right_as_ofNoOptional ISO date or year for the right identity; overrides as_of.
right_loc_idNoSecond DaedalMap loc_id.
include_successorsNoInclude direct successors and present-day descendants for maintained historical identities. Default true.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds conditional behavior ('when approved geometry exists') and the caveat about point-chain seams. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond the read-only hint.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The inclusion of 'No payment required' is slightly extraneous but does not significantly harm clarity.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key return values and usage context. It lacks explicit mention of batch usage via the 'items' parameter, but the schema covers that. It is otherwise quite 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail; 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Detailed relationship tool for two geographic identities' and lists specific outputs (temporal validity, successor context, topology, geodesic intersection area, overlap shares). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_geometry or resolve_point.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this after a compact point lookup' and directs to 'Use resolve_reference first for names or outside identifiers.' Also gives a critical caveat: 'A point-chain seam is not proof of strict parentage.'

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

All DaedalMap Disaster and Geospatial Data 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct scopes with detailed 'Use this' guidance, but a few pairs like get_disaster_link_chain and get_disaster_links_for_event, or query_dataset versus the specialized get_* event tools, could cause momentary confusion. Overall, descriptions mitigate overlap well.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_, compare_, convert_, create_, estimate_, get_, list_, resolve_). Minor exceptions like loc_id_info and query_dataset are acceptable but break the pattern slightly.

Tool Count3/5

28 tools exceed the preferred range, but the broad domain spanning disasters, geospatial geometry, reference conversion, and export jobs justifies many of them. Still, the count feels heavy and might overwhelm agents.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive: discovery (catalog, pack, geometry catalog), resolution (point, reference, scope), geometry (check, get, compare), conversion (quote, create, status), and disaster events for multiple types. No critical dead ends for the stated domain.

Resources