gisgp

geojson_to_csv

Convert GeoJSON to CSV/spreadsheet — one row per feature, properties as columns, geometry flattened into a column (e.g. "turn this GeoJSON into Excel/CSV", "I need a spreadsheet from these map features", "export GeoJSON as a table"). Returns the CSV as plain text.

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": "geojson_to_csv"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`geojson`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the conversion scheme (one row per feature, properties as columns, geometry flattened) and the return type (plain text CSV), giving the agent a clear behavioral model. However, it does not mention handling of nested properties or non-FeatureCollection inputs, which could be edge cases.

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?

Two sentences with a clear main clause, a dash-delimited detail section, and parenthetical examples. No wasted words; front-loaded with the core action.

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 simple conversion tool with a single parameter and an output schema not shown, the description covers purpose, usage intent, output format, and gives examples. It could add edge-case behavior (e.g., handling of geometry types) but is otherwise complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies the input as GeoJSON and clarifies that it processes features, but it does not specify the expected structure (e.g., FeatureCollection vs single feature) or string format. The parameter name 'geojson' is self-explanatory, limiting the gap.

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?

Specific verb 'Convert' plus resource 'GeoJSON to CSV/spreadsheet' clearly states the function. It distinguishes from sibling converters (geojson_to_kml, geojson_to_shapefile) by naming the target format, and the phrase 'one row per feature, properties as columns' adds precision.

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?

Provides example user intents that signal when to use this tool ('turn this GeoJSON into Excel/CSV', 'I need a spreadsheet from these map features'), but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like export_geojson_to_excel. The phrase 'Returns the CSV as plain text' hints at a distinction but could be more explicit.

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.