gisgp

spatial_join_geojson

Attach properties from every B feature that satisfies a spatial predicate to each A feature (as a _matches list).

predicate: intersects | within | contains | touches | crosses | overlaps.
Returns JSON {ok, predicate, match_count, geojson}.

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_a": "<geojson_a>",
      "geojson_b": "<geojson_b>"
    },
    "name": "spatial_join_geojson"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`geojson_a`	Yes
`geojson_b`	Yes
`predicate`	No	intersects

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedJul 26, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses behavior: it attaches properties as a _matches list and returns a JSON with ok, predicate, match_count, geojson. However, it does not cover error handling or performance considerations.

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 highly concise: two sentences that concisely explain the core action, predicate options, and return format with no superfluous information.

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 complexity and lack of schema descriptions, the description provides the essentials (action, predicates, return shape) but omits parameter format requirements and error handling. An output schema exists but is not visible in this context.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only implies the roles of geojson_a and geojson_b and lists predicate options. It does not detail format requirements or constraints for the geojson strings.

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 attaches properties from B features to A features based on a spatial predicate, listing the predicate options and return format, which distinguishes it from siblings like overlay_geojson.

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 usage for spatial joins but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as overlay_geojson or nearest_features_geojson.

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.