Skip to main content
Glama

gisgp

by io.github.uponex

bundle_export_fixed

PAID (150 credits) — fetch ALL records from a live FeatureServer layer (no 50-record preview cap), auto-repair invalid geometries (GEOS make_valid), and scan for common problems, in one call. Replaces an uncapped query_features call (itself a paid-only capability) plus fix_geometry plus find_layer_issues. Requires Authorization: Bearer and sufficient credits balance.

Returns JSON: {ok, feature_count, fixed_count, truncated, issues,
issue_count, geojson} — geojson is the fetched (and repaired) data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenNo
whereNo1=1
service_urlYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers paid nature (150 credits), auth requirement, what it does, and return fields. However, the 'truncated' field is not explained, which is a minor gap given the 'fetch ALL records' claim.

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 tight and front-loaded with the most critical info (PAID), followed by function, what it replaces, requirements, and return JSON. Every sentence adds value with no filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers the core functionality, cost, auth, and output fields. It doesn't mention error conditions or truncation behavior details, but an output schema exists and the description is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'token' or 'where' parameters. Only service_url is implied via 'FeatureServer layer.' This leaves the agent guessing at parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 fetches all records from a FeatureServer layer, repairs geometries, and scans for problems—a specific verb+resource combo. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming what it replaces (query_features + fix_geometry + find_layer_issues).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states when to use this over alternatives: 'Replaces an uncapped query_features call (itself a paid-only capability) plus fix_geometry plus find_layer_issues.' It also provides essential prerequisites like Authorization Bearer token and sufficient credits balance.

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

All gisgp 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many assess_* composite tools (datacenter, ev_charging, renewable, telecom, due_diligence) share the same building blocks of grid proximity, land cover, and terrain, making their boundaries fuzzy. assess_property_hazard_x402 also duplicates assess_property_hazard with only a payment-method difference, and bundle_* tools intentionally overlap with the free primitives they replace.

Naming Consistency3/5

There is a mix of verb_noun tools (query_features, geocode_address), noun-first geometry tools (centroids_geojson, envelope_geojson), and inconsistent _geojson suffix usage (buffer_geojson, fix_geometry, geometry_stats). The assess_* and bundle_* prefixes offer some grouping, but no single naming pattern is followed across the set.

Tool Count1/5

With 85 tools, the surface is extreme for an MCP server and far exceeds the typical well-scoped 3-15 range. Many tools are convenience bundles or variants that could be consolidated, making the count a significant usability burden.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers a broad range of GIS tasks: format conversions, GeoJSON analysis, FeatureServer query/inspection, geocoding, site assessment, and sharing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no Excel-to-GeoJSON, no FeatureServer update/delete), but most missing functionality can be worked around by chaining existing tools.

Resources