Skip to main content
Glama

Maptiler

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Static Map Url

static_map_url
Read-onlyIdempotent

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latYes
lonYes
zoomYes
styleYes
widthYes
heightYes
markerNo
retinaNo
attributionNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "height": 400,
+    "lat": 48.8566,
+    "lon": 2.3522,
+    "style": "streets",
+    "width": 600,
+    "zoom": 15
+  },
+  {
+    "height": 600,
+    "lat": 40.7128,
+    "lon": -74.006,
+    "marker": "red",
+    "retina": true,
+    "style": "satellite",
+    "width": 800,
+    "zoom": 12
+  }
+]
  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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns a fetchable PNG URL and requires no interactive JS, which is consistent with annotations. It does not contradict annotations. The behavioral transparency is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise, with a single sentence that front-loads common usage patterns. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundancy. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description states that the tool returns a 'fetchable PNG URL', which is sufficient for understanding the return value. It covers the main inputs and outputs. The tool is simple, and the description provides enough context for correct usage, though it could mention that the URL is directly usable.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'style + coords + zoom + width/height' but does not elaborate on each parameter (e.g., marker, retina, attribution). The examples in the schema provide some context, but the description itself lacks detailed parameter semantics. This is a moderate compensation.

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's purpose: returns a MapTiler static-tile image URL for embedding. It uses specific verbs and resources ('returns a MapTiler static-tile image URL') and provides example use cases ('embed a map', 'map thumbnail', 'screenshot of map'). While sibling tools like 'tiles_json' might be related, the description sets it apart by focusing on static image URLs for embedding.

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 clear usage patterns ('embed a map', 'map thumbnail PNG', 'screenshot of map') but does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or mention alternatives like 'tiles_json' for interactive maps. It implies usage for static embedding scenarios, which is helpful but lacks exclusion criteria.

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

All Maptiler 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap, e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs deep_research all for data lookup, and multiple Polymarket tools. Descriptions are detailed enough to distinguish, but the set is confusing.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is highly inconsistent: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), verb_noun (resolve_entity), underscores (ask_pipeworx), and domain-specific prefixes (polymarket_). No consistent pattern across tools.

Tool Count2/5

With 38 tools spanning geospatial, data lookup, prediction markets, memory, feedback, etc., the count is too high for a coherent server. Many tools are one-off and unrelated to the server's name (Maptiler).

Completeness2/5

The tool set covers many areas but lacks obvious gaps for each domain (e.g., MapTiler only has 4 tools). The overall surface is a collection of unrelated features, not a cohesive domain, so completeness is poor for any single purpose.

Resources