Catastro espanol en JSON limpio: inmuebles por referencia catastral, coordenadas o direccion.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool is uniquely identified by its input method: cadastral reference, coordinates, or address. There is no overlap in purpose; they all return the same normalized data but from different lookup keys, making selection unambiguous.
All tools start with 'consultar_inmueble', but the first uses 'catastro' while the others use 'por_coordenadas' and 'por_direccion'. The pattern is almost consistent, with a minor deviation in the first tool.
With 3 tools, the set is slightly lean but appropriate for a focused cadastral lookup service. Each tool covers a distinct and essential query method, so the count feels justified rather than sparse.
The tools cover the three primary ways to look up a property (reference, coordinates, address) and return comprehensive property data. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of batch queries or cartographic data, but the core domain is well-covered for typical use cases.
consultar_inmueble_catastroConsultar inmueble del Catastro espanolADevuelve datos catastrales no protegidos de un inmueble espanol a partir de su referencia catastral: clase (urbano/rustico), uso principal, superficie construida (m2), anio de construccion, direccion normalizada y desglose de construcciones (urbano) o cultivos (rustico). Traduce el servicio SOAP/XML de la Direccion General del Catastro (OVC) a JSON denso. Acepta referencias de 14/18/20 caracteres; si la de 14 (parcela) resuelve a varios inmuebles, devuelve la lista de candidatos para desambiguar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| referenciaCatastral | Yes | Referencia catastral espanola de 14 (parcela), 18 o 20 (inmueble) caracteres alfanumericos. Ejemplo: 9872023VH5797S0001WX |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| message | Yes | |
| property | Yes | |
| candidates | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds that it returns non-protected data, translates SOAP/XML to dense JSON, and returns a candidate list for ambiguous 14-character references. This gives useful behavioral detail not captured by annotations.
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?
The description is three sentences of substantive content, front-loaded with the main purpose and output fields. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition of schema details or fluff.
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?
Given the single parameter, existing output schema, and read-only annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, input format, ambiguity behavior, and return content. It is complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.
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% with a detailed parameter description including pattern and example. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that 14-character references are parcels and may yield multiple candidates, which is not in the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the tool returns non-protected cadastral data for a Spanish property from its cadastral reference, listing the specific fields returned. The input method (referencia catastral) distinguishes it from sibling tools that use coordinates or address.
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?
The description provides clear context by specifying accepted reference lengths (14/18/20 characters) and explaining the disambiguation behavior for 14-character references that resolve to multiple properties. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state 'when not to use', but the input-based purpose is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
consultar_inmueble_por_coordenadasConsultar inmueble del Catastro espanol por coordenadasAResuelve y devuelve los datos catastrales no protegidos de un inmueble espanol a partir de unas coordenadas geograficas (latitud/longitud). Util para resolver el inmueble desde un punto de un mapa cuando no se tiene la referencia catastral. SRS soportados: EPSG:4326 (WGS84, por defecto) y EPSG:4258 (ETRS89). Devuelve el MISMO JSON normalizado que la consulta por referencia catastral (clase urbano/rustico, uso, superficie construida, anio, direccion); si el punto cae en una parcela con varios inmuebles, devuelve la lista de candidatos. Cobertura: territorio comun (excluye Pais Vasco y Navarra).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | Latitud en grados decimales (WGS84/ETRS89). Rango -90..90. Ej: 41.3915 | |
| lon | Yes | Longitud en grados decimales (WGS84/ETRS89). Rango -180..180. Ej: 2.1620 | |
| srs | No | Codigo EPSG del sistema de referencia. Soportados: EPSG:4326 (WGS84, por defecto) y EPSG:4258 (ETRS89). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| message | Yes | |
| property | Yes | |
| candidates | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare read-only and open-world hints, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it clarifies data are 'no protegidos', states behavior when multiple properties share a parcel (returns candidates), notes identical JSON format to the reference-based query, and gives geographic coverage limitations. This goes beyond the annotations.
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?
The description is compact yet densely informative, front-loading the core action and purpose, then adding use case, SRS, return format, edge-case behavior, and coverage. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.
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?
Given the output schema exists and annotations are present, the description still fills key gaps: geographic coverage limits, ambiguous-point handling, and the relationship to the reference-based query. It is complete for safe, informed use of this read-only lookup tool.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for lat, lon, and srs including ranges, defaults, and examples. The description adds little parameter-specific beyond restating coordinates and SRS support, so it stays at the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the tool resolves and returns unprotected Spanish cadastral data from geographic coordinates, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is for when the cadastral reference is not available and the input is a map point.
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?
Explicitly states the primary use case (resolving a property from a map point without a cadastral reference) and provides coverage exclusions (Pais Vasco and Navarra), effectively indicating when not to use it. It also mentions that the output is the same as the cadastral-reference query, implying an alternative without always naming it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
consultar_inmueble_por_direccionConsultar inmueble del Catastro espanol por direccionAResuelve y devuelve los datos catastrales no protegidos de un inmueble urbano espanol a partir de su DIRECCION (provincia, municipio, via y numero). Util para resolver el inmueble desde el texto de un anuncio cuando no se tiene la referencia catastral. Provincia y municipio van por NOMBRE (no codigo); streetType es la sigla de la via (CL, AV, PZ...) y se recomienda para acertar. Devuelve el MISMO JSON normalizado que la consulta por referencia (clase urbano/rustico, uso, superficie construida, anio, direccion); si el numero corresponde a varios inmuebles (propiedad horizontal), devuelve la lista de candidatos para desambiguar (afina con bloque/escalera/planta/puerta). Solo direcciones urbanas; cobertura: territorio comun (excluye Pais Vasco y Navarra).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| door | No | Puerta, si aplica. Opcional: afina a un inmueble concreto. | |
| block | No | Bloque, si aplica (propiedad horizontal). Opcional: afina a un inmueble concreto. | |
| floor | No | Planta, si aplica. Opcional: afina a un inmueble concreto. | |
| province | Yes | Provincia por NOMBRE (no codigo), p. ej. 'CIUDAD REAL', 'MADRID'. Obligatorio. Territorio comun (excluye Pais Vasco y Navarra). | |
| stairway | No | Escalera, si aplica. Opcional: afina a un inmueble concreto. | |
| streetName | Yes | Nombre de la via SIN la sigla, p. ej. 'GLORIA', 'ALCALA'. Obligatorio. | |
| streetType | No | Tipo/sigla de via del Catastro: CL (calle), AV (avenida), PZ (plaza), CR (carretera), CM (camino)... Opcional pero recomendado para acertar la via. | |
| municipality | Yes | Municipio por NOMBRE, p. ej. 'SANTA CRUZ DE MUDELA', 'MADRID'. Obligatorio. | |
| streetNumber | Yes | Numero de policia, p. ej. '51'. Obligatorio. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| message | Yes | |
| property | Yes | |
| candidates | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnly and openWorld hints. The description adds meaningfully: it returns only non-protected data, returns a candidate list for multiple properties, refines with block/stairway/floor/door, and describes the normalized output. No contradictions.
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 dense, front-loaded paragraph with zero fluff. Each clause adds actionable information, from the primary use case to the disambiguation behavior and territorial coverage.
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 tool with 9 parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers the decision context: when to choose it, how to refine the address, what to expect in the response, and what's out of scope. The output schema handles return structure, so no additional detail is needed.
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%, but the description elevates the semantics: it explains province/municipality must be by name, streetType is the via abbreviation (CL, AV, PZ), and optional fields serve the disambiguation of horizontal property units. This is exactly the kind of clarification an agent needs to pass correct parameters.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Resuelve y devuelve los datos catastrales no protegidos de un inmueble urbano español a partir de su DIRECCION'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting it is for when the cadastral reference is unavailable, and references the normalized JSON shared with the reference-based query.
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?
It explicitly states when to use: 'cuando no se tiene la referencia catastral' and specifies limitations: 'Solo direcciones urbanas' and coverage excludes País Vasco and Navarra. The mention of the reference-based query's JSON implicitly provides an alternative pathway.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!