gisgp

geojson_to_mapinfo_tab

Convert GeoJSON to a MapInfo TAB file set, ready for MapInfo Pro. TAB is a multi-sidecar-file format (.tab/.dat/.id/.map) and single geometry type per file, like Shapefile — always returned as a zip, mixed point/line/polygon input is split into one .tab set per category.

Returns JSON: {mapinfo_tab_zip_base64: str, split: bool,
split_categories: [str]|null}.

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_mapinfo_tab"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`geojson`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does so thoroughly: explains the multi-sidecar format (.tab/.dat/.id/.map), single geometry type per file, that output is always zipped, that mixed geometries are split into separate sets per category, and specifies the exact JSON return structure. This covers the key behaviors an agent needs to anticipate, making the tool's side effects and output format fully transparent.

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 three sentences long, with the purpose in the first sentence, format details in the second, and return structure in the third. Every sentence adds necessary information without fluff or repetition. The most critical information (the conversion target) is front-loaded, making it efficient for agents to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (conversion with sidecar files and splitting behavior), the description is largely complete: it covers output format, handling of mixed geometry, and the return JSON. However, it does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., invalid GeoJSON, empty input) or prerequisites like coordinate reference system handling, which could be relevant in a geospatial context. The provided output schema in the description mitigates the lack of explicit schema, but a small gap remains for edge cases.

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?

The schema has only one parameter 'geojson' with 0% description coverage. The description adds no specific guidance about the parameter: it does not clarify what constitutes valid GeoJSON (e.g., FeatureCollection vs. Geometry), coordinate system expectations, or size limits. The name alone implies the input is GeoJSON, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, offering no additional semantic clarity beyond what the parameter name already conveys.

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 clear verb ('Convert') and resource ('GeoJSON to a MapInfo TAB file set'), specifically naming the target application (MapInfo Pro). It also differentiates from Shapefile by explaining that TAB is a multi-sidecar format with single geometry type per file, which helps distinguish it from sibling conversion tools like geojson_to_shapefile. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use this tool by stating it outputs MapInfo TAB format, but it does not explicitly mention any alternative tools or conditions for when not to use it. It notes the format is 'like Shapefile' which hints at a comparison but stops short of saying 'use this instead of geojson_to_shapefile when you need MapInfo compatibility.' There is no explicit exclusion or alternative naming, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and general context.

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.