query_intersects1:1 wrapper for /api/intersects/. Spatial intersection against named city layers such as row, taxlot, describe, street, and waterbody.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| buffer | No | ||
| detail | No | ||
| include | No | ||
| geometry | Yes | ESRI JSON geometry in wkid 2913, 3857, or 4326. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the tool's safety and idempotence are clear. The description adds that it is a 1:1 wrapper for a specific API endpoint, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond that. No contradiction with 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details. No superfluous words.
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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description adequately states the function and layers but lacks details about output behavior, parameter effects (e.g., detail flag), or geometry constraints beyond format. Annotations cover safety, but completeness is minimal.
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 description coverage is low (25%), with only the 'geometry' parameter having a description. The tool description lists layers like row, taxlot, etc., which map to the 'include' enum values, but it does not explain parameters like buffer, detail, or their defaults. The description adds minimal semantic value over 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 it is a 1:1 wrapper for /api/intersects/, performing spatial intersection against named city layers. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like convert_geometry or get_assessor_data.
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 implies usage for spatial intersection queries against specific layers, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct data types (assessor, permits, land use, sewer, geometry, etc.), but get_portlandmaps_detail overlaps conceptually with the specific search tools as a generic detail fetcher. This could cause confusion about which tool to use for a particular record.
The vast majority follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern. However, two tools (get_portlandmaps_detail, suggest_portlandmaps_address) redundantly include the server name, breaking the otherwise consistent naming scheme.
11 tools cover a broad range of Portland city data and GIS operations. The count is well-scoped for the domain—neither too sparse nor excessive.
The server covers major data categories like assessor, permits, land use, sewer, geometry, and spatial queries. Potential gaps like explicit zoning or code lookups might exist, but the set is largely comprehensive for typical PortlandMaps queries.