ExplorationMaps

Search mineral claims and tenure

search_mineral_claims

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search public mineral-claim registries by holder, exact claim number, claim name, or geographic bounding box; provide query, bbox, or both. Claim-name search is available for British Columbia and US BLM jurisdictions. Returns claim number as a string, name, holder, status, expiry, area and centroid when the registry supplies them. Cluster results geographically before selecting a specific project. Results are informational, not a legal title opinion or survey.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bbox`	No	Optional [minLng,minLat,maxLng,maxLat] spatial query.
`limit`	No	Maximum claim summaries returned to the model.
`query`	No	Company/holder name, claim number, or claim name.
`search_type`	No	Search by holder/company, claim number, or claim name.	company
`jurisdiction`	Yes	Mineral-registry jurisdiction.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes
`claims`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`returned`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`jurisdiction`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 23, 2026

removedInput schema / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "query"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "bbox"
-    ]
-  }
-]

First observedSep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing jurisdiction-specific behavior ('Claim-name search is available for British Columbia and US BLM jurisdictions') and that returned fields depend on registry supply. It also warns that results are informational, not a legal title opinion.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return values, usage instruction, and legal disclaimer. The most important information is front-loaded, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is covered elsewhere. The description covers search modes, jurisdictional restrictions, clustering workflow, and legal limitations, giving an agent everything needed to decide when to call the tool and how to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns a 4 by clarifying that query and bbox can be used together or separately, and by constraining claim-name search to specific jurisdictions—context not fully captured in the schema parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search public mineral-claim registries by holder, exact claim number, claim name, or geographic bounding box.' It also enumerates returned fields (claim number, name, holder, status, expiry, area, centroid), making the tool's scope unambiguous and clearly distinct from the mapping/capability siblings.

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 gives actionable guidance: 'provide query, bbox, or both' and 'Cluster results geographically before selecting a specific project.' It also includes a when-not-to-use caveat by stating results are not a legal title opinion. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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

All ExplorationMaps 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.