gisgp

shapefile_to_geojson

Convert a Shapefile ZIP (base64-encoded .zip with .shp/.dbf/.shx[/.prj]) to a GeoJSON FeatureCollection. Reprojects to WGS84 if a .prj says otherwise.

Returns JSON: {geojson: {...}, reprojection_notice: 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": {
      "shapefile_zip_base64": "<shapefile_zip_base64>"
    },
    "name": "shapefile_to_geojson"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`shapefile_zip_base64`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: reprojection to WGS84 if .prj indicates otherwise, and the return JSON structure with geojson and reprojection_notice. It does not cover error handling, size limits, or permission requirements, but the core behavior is clear.

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 two sentences long, each serving a clear purpose: defining input and output, and noting a crucial processing detail (reprojection). No redundant or irrelevant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 reprojection), the description covers the input format, reprojection behavior, and return structure. It does not mention potential errors, file size limitations, or the expected structure of the GeoJSON, but the existence of an output schema (implied by the JSON return) reduces the need for that detail. Overall, it is complete enough for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains the single parameter 'shapefile_zip_base64' as a base64-encoded .zip containing .shp/.dbf/.shx/.prj files. This adds essential meaning beyond the type 'string', fully compensating for the missing schema description.

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 clearly states the tool converts a Shapefile ZIP to GeoJSON FeatureCollection, and specifies the required files (.shp/.dbf/.shx/.prj). It also mentions reprojection to WGS84, distinguishing it from sibling conversion tools like csv_to_geojson or geojson_to_shapefile.

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 implicitly guides usage by specifying the input format (Shapefile ZIP) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like geojson_to_shapefile or other conversion tools. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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.