PortlandMaps (Unofficial)

Render Parcel Shape

render_parcel_shape

Read-onlyIdempotent

Render a property's lot as an interactive UI component (inline SVG): a City of Portland aerial photo underlay (showing the true roofline) with the parcel outline, the building footprint(s) on the lot, approximate setback dimensions, a north arrow, and faint neighbouring parcels overlaid on top. Provide a detailType+detailId to fetch geometry, or pass rings directly. Aerial, footprints, and neighbours come from Portland's public ArcGIS layers; set basemap="none" to drop the photo and includeContext=false for just the bare outline. Renders in MCP Apps hosts (Claude) and legacy mcp-ui hosts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rings`	No	Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) parcel rings, e.g. geometry.rings. Bypasses fetching.
`title`	No	Caption shown on the component.
`basemap`	No	Aerial photo underlay (true rooflines). 'aerial' fetches a City of Portland image; 'none' renders dark vectors only.	aerial
`detailId`	No	detail_id used to fetch geometry when rings are not supplied.
`detailType`	No	detail_type used to fetch geometry when rings are not supplied.	zoning
`includeContext`	No	Overlay building footprints, setbacks, and neighbouring parcels. Set false for just the lot outline.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rings`	Yes
`title`	No
`basemap`	No
`areaSqFt`	Yes
`setbacks`	No
`buildings`	No
`neighbors`	No

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description adds key behavioral context: data sources (Portland's public ArcGIS layers), rendering environment (MCP Apps hosts and legacy mcp-ui), and the interactive SVG output. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and dependencies.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and efficiently conveys all necessary details without unnecessary words.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers all necessary context: inputs, outputs type (inline SVG), options, data sources, and host environments. No gaps are evident.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All 6 parameters have descriptive schema explanations, and the description adds meaning by explaining how parameters interact (e.g., 'rings' bypasses fetching, basemap and includeContext control layers). Schema coverage is 100%, and the description complements it effectively.

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 renders a property lot as an interactive SVG with specific visual elements (aerial underlay, parcel outline, footprints, setbacks, north arrow, neighbors). It distinguishes from sibling tools which deal with data retrieval or conversion rather than visual rendering.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides guidance on how to supply input ('Provide a detailType+detailId to fetch geometry, or pass rings directly') and mentions optional parameters (basemap, includeContext). It does not explicitly list when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the distinct purpose from sibling tools is clear.

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

All PortlandMaps (Unofficial) 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

B3.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?