Skip to main content
Glama

Mapbox

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Static Image Url

static_image_url
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Static map image of [location]" / "embed a map of [coords]" / "screenshot a map" / "thumbnail map" — generates a Mapbox static-tile image URL for embedding in slack, docs, emails, or dashboards. Pass style + coords + zoom + width/height; returns a fetchable PNG URL. No client-side JS or interactivity required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latYes
lonYes
zoomYes
pitchNo
widthYes
heightYes
retinaNo
bearingNo
style_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL to fetch the rendered map image
noteYesInstructions for using the URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      [
  {
    "height": 400,
    "lat": 37.7749,
    "lon": -122.4194,
    "style_id": "light-v10",
    "width": 600,
    "zoom": 12
  },
  {
    "bearing": 45,
    "height": 600,
    "lat": 40.7128,
    "lon": -74.006,
    "pitch": 60,
    "retina": true,
    "style_id": "dark-v10",
    "width": 800,
    "zoom": 14
  }
]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Before
      null
      After
      {
  "properties": {
    "note": {
      "description": "Instructions for using the URL",
      "type": "string"
    },
    "url": {
      "description": "URL to fetch the rendered map image",
      "type": "string"
    }
  },
  "required": [
    "url",
    "note"
  ],
  "type": "object"
}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns a 'fetchable PNG URL' and requires no JS, but does not mention rate limits, auth, or other potential side effects. It adds some context beyond annotations but is not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with query examples, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 good annotations, the description covers purpose, use cases, return type, and required param semantics. Optional params are left for examples, but overall this is sufficient for a simple URL-generation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description maps 'style + coords + zoom + width/height' to required params (style_id, lon/lat, zoom, width, height). However, optional params like pitch, bearing, and retina are only shown in examples without explanation, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 it 'generates a Mapbox static-tile image URL' and provides example user queries like 'Static map image of [location]'. This distinguishes it from interactive or other map tools, giving a specific verb and resource.

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?

It lists concrete use cases ('embedding in slack, docs, emails, or dashboards') and notes 'No client-side JS or interactivity required', which signals when to prefer this static approach. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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

All Mapbox toolsInspect
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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) and several tools serve similar data-retrieval functions, making it difficult for an agent to distinguish which to use.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names mostly follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., geocode_forward, generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity). A few less descriptive names (forget, recall) exist but overall naming is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is far too many for a server branded as 'Mapbox'. Only about 8 tools directly relate to map/geospatial functionality; the rest are unrelated (Pipeworx data, Polymarket, memory). The scope is dramatically overextended.

Completeness2/5

The Mapbox-specific tools lack coverage of major features like style management, tilesets, or data upload. The non-Mapbox tools cover their domains moderately, but the server's overall completeness for its named purpose (Mapbox) is severely lacking.

Resources