gisgp

generate_static_map_image

Render a GeoJSON FeatureCollection/Feature to a static PNG map image (base64 data URL) — for embedding in reports/emails/documents, unlike share_map's interactive live page. basemap: 'topo', 'streets', or 'satellite'. Reuses the exact rendering path already used inside PDF map reports, no new map-rendering logic. Optional agol_token: for a single-Point input, renders through Esri's own Static Maps Service instead (real ArcGIS basemap tiles) — uses YOUR OWN AGOL credentials/quota, not GISGP's (multi-feature/non-point input always uses the default renderer regardless of token). Returns JSON: {ok, image_data_url, feature_count, width, height, basemap}.

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": {
      "geojson": "<geojson>"
    },
    "name": "generate_static_map_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`width`	No
`accent`	No	#2563eb
`height`	No
`basemap`	No	topo
`geojson`	Yes
`agol_token`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedJul 29, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / agol_token

Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Agol Token",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedJul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Explains rendering path (reuses PDF map reports logic), basemap options, and agol_token behavior for single-Point vs multi-feature input. Mentions return format. Missing error handling details, but overall transparent.

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?

Description is reasonably concise (few sentences) with a clear structure: purpose, distinction from sibling, basemap detail, token behavior, return format. Each sentence adds value, though could be slightly shorter.

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 6 parameters and an output schema (described in text), the description covers essential aspects: purpose, usage context, behavioral details, and return fields. Lacks input validation or error states, but sufficient for typical use.

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 has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions in JSON schema). Description adds meaning for basemap (lists options) and agol_token (explains conditional behavior), but does not detail width, height, accent, or geojson beyond stating they exist. Partial 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?

Clearly states it renders GeoJSON to a static PNG map image (base64 data URL) for embedding in reports/emails/documents, distinguishing it from share_map (interactive live page). The verb 'render' and resource 'GeoJSON FeatureCollection/Feature' are specific.

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?

Explicitly mentions when to use (embedding in reports/emails/documents) and contrasts with share_map. Provides context for optional agol_token usage, but does not specify when not to use other siblings beyond share_map.

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.