Convert a GPS track file (GPX) directly to an Esri Shapefile ZIP — waypoints become points, tracks/routes become lines (2026-09-03). Returns JSON: {shapefile_zip_base64, warnings}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpx | 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so by describing the element mapping (waypoints to points, tracks/routes to lines) and the exact return payload ({shapefile_zip_base64, warnings}). It does not discuss coordinate-system handling or edge cases, but the disclosed behaviors are substantive.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with the conversion purpose, mapping rule, and return format in three clauses. The parenthetical date '(2026-09-03)' is unexplained clutter, but it does not significantly damage clarity.
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?
For a one-parameter conversion tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it defines the input domain, output payload, and core transformation. The main missing piece is the exact representation expected for the gpx parameter.
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?
The schema has a single required string parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description's phrase 'GPS track file (GPX)' supplies the core meaning. However, it never specifies whether gpx should be raw GPX XML, a file path, or base64-encoded content, leaving a meaningful gap for a string parameter.
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 names a specific verb+resource ('Convert a GPS track file (GPX) directly to an Esri Shapefile ZIP') and adds the waypoint/track/route mapping, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling conversion tools such as gpx_to_geojson, gpx_to_kml, and shapefile_to_gpx.
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?
The intended use is clear from the stated input and output formats: use this when a GPX file must become an Esri Shapefile ZIP. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the conversion direction is unambiguous.
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.