Change a GeoJSON's coordinate reference system (CRS/projection) — e.g. "reproject to Web Mercator", "convert WGS84 to UTM", "my coordinates are in the wrong CRS", "EPSG:4326 to EPSG:3857". Reprojects every geometry type between any two EPSG codes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| geojson | Yes | ||
| to_epsg | Yes | ||
| from_epsg | 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 discloses a key behavioral guarantee: it reprojects every geometry type between any two EPSG codes. However, it does not mention whether it returns a new GeoJSON, mutates the input, or any error conditions, leaving some ambiguity.
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 front-loaded purpose followed by concise examples. No wasted words; the structure is ideal.
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?
Given the simple 3-parameter shape and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage scenarios, and behavioral scope. It does not discuss edge cases, but that is acceptable for this tool type. Sibling competition is low because the description's examples map well to user intents.
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 descriptions are absent, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains 'from_epsg' and 'to_epsg' via the phrase 'between any two EPSG codes' and examples, but does not explicitly define each parameter or the expected format of the geojson input (though the schema states it is a string).
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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('GeoJSON's coordinate reference system') and includes both technical and natural-language queries (e.g., 'reproject to Web Mercator', 'EPSG:4326 to EPSG:3857') that clearly define the operation. It distinguishes from siblings that handle coordinate conversion or geometry operations.
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 examples cover what users might say, establishing when to use this tool (e.g., 'my coordinates are in the wrong CRS'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough and no exclusions are stated.
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.