Search and read published animated maps of borders and history. No sign-in needed.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: search_maps finds maps, while get_public_map retrieves a specific map's full content. There is no overlap in selection intent.
Both names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: search_maps and get_public_map. The convention is predictable and easy to infer.
Two tools are enough for basic search-and-retrieve workflows, but the surface feels thin for a published-map catalog. There is no dedicated listing or browsing tool to round out the set.
The server covers the core lifecycle of finding a published map and retrieving its details, including text, timeline, layers, events, and embed code. A list/browse-all operation or category discovery would improve coverage, but the main use cases are supported.
One published map as Markdown: description and sources, the timeline of keyframes (date and caption), layers, events, and the iframe code to embed the interactive map. Pass its URL, or the handle and slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | e.g. https://www.movingpolygons.com/map/Chris/the-ottoman-empire-12991923 | |
| slug | No | ||
| username | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description earns credit by being the sole disclosure of the return payload (Markdown body, keyframe timeline, layers, events, iframe code), standing in for the missing output schema. It does not mention whether unpublished/private maps are rejected or what an invalid URL/handle produces.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence: return contents first, invocation second. Every clause carries information — the payload list and the two calling modes — with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape thoroughly, which is the main burden here. Gaps are minor: no failure behavior, no statement of what an unpublished or nonexistent map returns, and no confirmation that zero arguments is not a valid call despite required params being empty.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% — url has an example, slug and username have nothing. The description partially compensates by presenting two input modes (URL alone, or handle+slug), but it never states that 'handle' maps to the `username` field, nor whether both of those are jointly required, leaving ambiguity at the exact point the schema is weakest.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names a specific verb and resource ('One published map as Markdown') and enumerates exactly what comes back (description, sources, keyframe timeline, layers, events, iframe embed code). The word 'published' is the only signal separating it from the sibling get_map, which is a reasonable but unstated distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Pass its URL, or the handle and slug' tells the agent how to call it but not when to prefer it over get_map, list_maps, or search_maps. Usage is implied by 'published map' rather than stated, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find published animated maps on Moving Polygons (history, wars, empires, borders, epidemics, sea ice…) by words in their title or description and/or a year they cover. Returns links to the interactive map, its text version and its article.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Only maps whose timeline includes this year; negative for BC (-44 = 44 BC) | |
| limit | No | Default 10 | |
| query | No | Words to match, e.g. 'Ottoman', 'Holy Roman Empire', 'Ukraine war' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating results are limited to published maps and by describing the return payload (interactive map link, text version, article), which matters because there is no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact sentences with zero waste: the purpose and search dimensions are front-loaded, followed by the return shape. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only, zero-required-parameter search tool whose schema is fully documented, the description is essentially complete: it covers scope, searchable fields, and return content. Minor gaps (no mention of result ordering or the default limit behavior) are non-critical and partly covered by the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds combinability semantics ('and/or') that the schema does not state, telling the agent the two filters can be used alone or together, which is genuine meaning beyond the field docs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (find) and resource (published animated maps) and scopes it with domain examples plus the two search dimensions (title/description words and year). It does not name a sibling such as list_maps or get_map, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by 'by words ... and/or a year', making it clear this is the text/year search entry point. There is no statement about when to prefer list_maps, get_map, or get_public_map instead, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_public_mapsearch_mapsAnimated map videos of any story: trips, wars, empires, storms, data. Free, no signup.
Create, edit and publish animated historical maps in your Moving Polygons account.
Historical borders and dated map events with source attribution and coverage limits.
Search experimental video history, read public records, follow sources and export citations.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.