catastro

Consultar inmueble del Catastro espanol por coordenadas

consultar_inmueble_por_coordenadas

Read-only

Resuelve 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).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`property`	Yes
`candidates`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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.

All catastro tools Inspect

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

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?