gisgp

discover_open_geodata_pro

PAID (30 credits) — open-data discovery with the metadata an agent needs BEFORE querying: up to 50 ArcGIS Hub results (free tool: 10) and, for the top 25, each layer's geometry type, field list, record count and query capability — so you can pick the right layer in one call instead of probing each service_url. Same coverage as the free discover_open_geodata (ArcGIS Hub Open Data), no key, real REST metadata. Needs an API key with credits — use estimate_cost first.

Returns JSON: {ok, query, count, enriched, results:[{name, type,
source_org, description, service_url, layer_name, geometry_type, fields,
field_count, record_count, max_record_count, supports_query}]}.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "discover_open_geodata_pro"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes
`enrich`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost (30 credits), that it's paid, that it returns a specific JSON structure, and that it requires an API key. It doesn't mention side effects, but as a discovery tool it's implicitly read-only; the disclosed prerequisites and return format provide strong transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but each sentence earns its place: cost, purpose, limits, alternative, prerequisite, and return format are all covered. The return JSON block is clearly delimited and aids parsing. It's slightly long but not wasteful, and the most critical info (cost and purpose) is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool of this complexity, the description covers purpose, cost, alternative, prerequisite, and output structure. It doesn't mention error handling or pagination, but the tool's scope is clearly bounded (up to 50 results, top 25 enriched). Given the output schema is effectively described, the description is largely complete for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It hints at 'limit' via 'up to 50 results' and at 'enrich' via 'for the top 25', but it never explicitly ties these to the schema parameters or explains their types and effects. The 'query' parameter is entirely unaddressed, leaving the agent to infer.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'open-data discovery with the metadata an agent needs BEFORE querying', and differentiates from the free sibling tool 'discover_open_geodata' by explicitly mentioning it. It clearly explains the tool's value proposition: picking the right layer in one call instead of probing service URLs.

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 names the free alternative 'discover_open_geodata' and contrasts the pro version's advantages (more results, enriched metadata, real REST metadata). It also gives a clear prerequisite: 'Needs an API key with credits — use estimate_cost first', which tells the agent when and how to prepare.

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

All gisgp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.