Ready-to-paste embed code for a live interactive map — thin wrapper around share_map (same live page, same 30-day TTL), for embedding directly in a website/dashboard rather than sharing a link. Returns JSON: {ok, embed_html, url, expires_at}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Shared map | |
| width | No | 100% | |
| height | No | 480 | |
| geojson | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description takes on full burden. It discloses it's a thin wrapper around share_map, mentions the 30-day TTL, and specifies the return JSON fields. However, it doesn't detail side effects, auth needs, or error conditions, leaving minor gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence covers purpose and relationship to share_map, the second lists output fields. Highly efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While it explains the output schema and relationship to share_map, it misses parameter documentation. Given the complexity (4 params, 1 required) and presence of an output schema described in text, it is mostly complete but has a notable gap in parameter semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema parameter coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (name, width, height, geojson). It doesn't clarify that geojson is required or how the optional parameters affect output. This is a significant omission given the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides an iframe embed code for a live interactive map. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling share_map by noting it's for embedding rather than sharing a link. The verb 'provides embed code' is specific and the resource is well-defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explains when to use this tool (for embedding in a website/dashboard) and contrasts with share_map (for sharing a link). It doesn't list exclusions but provides clear context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.