GeoSpark

Site selection

select_site

Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank candidate sites in an area by geodesic distance to amenities you want nearby and away from ones to avoid (OpenStreetMap data). Takes ~10-30 s.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "within": "<within>"
    },
    "name": "select_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`near`	No	Amenity types to be close to
`avoid`	No	Amenity types to stay away from
`within`	Yes	City or neighbourhood
`radius_m`	No	Search radius in metres from the centre of the area
`facility_type`	No	What the site is for, e.g. 'pharmacy'; labels the result, does not change the ranking	restaurant

Output Schema

Name	Required	Default
`bbox`	No
`type`	No	FeatureCollection
`features`	Yes
`geospark`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / facility_type / description

Added value: +"What the site is for, e.g. 'pharmacy'; labels the result, does not change the ranking"

addedInput schema / properties / radius_m / description

Added value: +"Search radius in metres from the centre of the area"

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds two things the annotations do not: the data source (OpenStreetMap) and an expected latency of ~10-30 s, which is meaningful for an open-world lookup that could time out. It adds no detail on result ordering semantics beyond 'rank', but the output schema carries that.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the operation and its ranking basis, the second gives cost. The core purpose is front-loaded with no preamble or restatement of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to convey operation, data source, and cost, which it does. The one residual gap is that the shape of the ranking (score scale, tie handling) is not hinted at, though the output schema plausibly covers it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already carries a clear description in the schema, including the subtle note that facility_type labels rather than re-ranks. The prose adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Rank candidate sites in an area by geodesic distance to amenities'. That is concrete enough that an agent can distinguish it from geocode, isochrone, or location_report without opening the schema. It stops short of a 5 only because it never names or contrasts a sibling tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the phrasing 'amenities you want nearby and away from ones to avoid', which suggests the site-selection scenario, and the runtime note hints at cost. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative named, so the agent must infer the routing itself.

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

All GeoSpark tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.