apibase

Search Named Places and Landmarks

overpass.search.named

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search OpenStreetMap for named geographic features — streets, parks, landmarks, rivers, mountains, districts, or any named OSM element — by partial name (case-insensitive). Optionally constrain results to a bounding box. Filter by element type: node (point features like fountains, statues), way (roads, paths, area outlines), relation (complex features like national parks, city boundaries), or all. Returns name, coordinates or centroid, place type, and all OSM tags. Useful for locating specific landmarks or verifying a place exists in a region.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name or partial name to search for (case-insensitive regex). E.g. "Central Park", "Baker Street", "Eiffel".
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return (1–30, default 10).
`lat_max`	No	Optional northern boundary latitude to constrain the search area.
`lat_min`	No	Optional southern boundary latitude to constrain the search area.
`lon_max`	No	Optional eastern boundary longitude to constrain the search area.
`lon_min`	No	Optional western boundary longitude to constrain the search area.
`feature_type`	No	OSM element type to search: "node" (points), "way" (roads/areas), "relation" (complex features), "all" (default).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No	Present only when the call failed. Includes error code, message, request_id, and any provider-specific extras.
`result`	No	Tool response payload. Shape varies per tool — consult the tool description and inputSchema. May be an object, array, string, or number depending on the upstream provider response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral details such as partial name search, case-insensitivity, and return fields (name, coordinates/centroid, place type, tags). It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, but given annotations, this is a minor gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph with four sentences, each contributing value: purpose, optional constraints, filter, returns, and use case. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no fluff, though it is not as tight as a two-sentence example. It strikes a good balance between completeness and brevity.

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 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, an output schema (as indicated), and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate. It explains the use case and provides examples for key parameters. It does not mention result limits or edge cases, but for a search tool with a well-defined schema, this is sufficient.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to feature_type by providing examples (node=fountains/statues, way=roads/paths, relation=complex features) and clarifies the name parameter (partial, case-insensitive). It also explains output fields, enriching beyond what the schema provides.

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 searches OpenStreetMap for named geographic features, listing concrete examples (streets, parks, landmarks) and distinguishing from sibling tools (amenities, nearby, transit) by focusing on named elements. The verb 'Search' and resource are specific, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear usage context, noting it is 'useful for locating specific landmarks or verifying a place exists in a region.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like overpass.search.amenities or overpass.search.transit. The sibling names imply differentiation, but explicit guidance is lacking.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All apibase tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.