Skip to main content
Glama

maptiler

by io.usefulapi

Search coordinate reference systems

maptiler_search_coordinate_systems
Read-only

Search MapTiler's CRS/EPSG database by free text or key:value filters (e.g. 'code:4326', 'kind:CRS-PROJCRS'). API: GET /coordinates/search/{query}.json.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (1-50). Default 10.
queryYesSearch terms; supports filters like "code:4326" or "kind:CRS-PROJCRS".
offsetNoPagination offset. Default 0.
exportsNoInclude WKT / Proj4 export strings for each CRS.
transformationsNoInclude available transformations for each CRS.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to disclose read-only behavior. It adds the API endpoint but no further behavioral traits. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences that are concise and front-loaded with purpose, followed by filter examples and API endpoint. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple search tool with no output schema and good annotations, the description adequately covers the basic functionality and filter capabilities. Could mention pagination or response format but 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% with good descriptions. The description adds value by showing filter syntax examples like 'code:4326', enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 that the tool searches MapTiler's CRS/EPSG database using free text or key:value filters, with specific examples like 'code:4326'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that handle geocoding or coordinate transformations.

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 examples of filters and implies use for searching coordinate systems. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, though sibling tool names provide context.

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

All maptiler toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: forward geocoding (batch and single), reverse geocoding, IP geolocation, data features retrieval, elevation lookup, coordinate system search, and coordinate transformation. There is no overlap or ambiguity among them.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores, prefixed by 'maptiler_'. While most are consistent (e.g., 'get_elevation', 'search_coordinate_systems'), 'reverse_geocode' and 'geolocate_ip' are slight variations but still clear. The naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools is an appropriate number for a geolocation and mapping utility server. Each tool serves a distinct operation without being excessive or insufficient. The scope is well-defined.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core geolocation operations: forward/reverse geocoding, batch processing, IP geolocation, elevation, coordinate systems, and data features. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no map tile retrieval or routing), but the set is complete for the advertised functionality.

Resources