Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chuk MCP STAC

Chuk MCP STAC

Official
by IBM
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

stac_map

Read-only

Visualize STAC scene search results as an interactive multi-layer footprint map, with bounding-box polygons grouped by collection and popup metadata including cloud cover and acquisition date.

Instructions

Visualise STAC scene search results as a multi-layer footprint map. Scenes appear as bounding-box polygons, grouped by collection, with cloud cover, acquisition date, and thumbnail URL in the popup. Run stac_search first, then pass the scene_ids here.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "stac_map"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
basemapNosatellite
scene_idsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the map's visual elements (polygons, grouping, popup content). It confirms the tool is read-only and visual, consistent with the annotation.

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?

Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, visual output, and usage prerequisite. No redundant information, but could briefly mention the basemap parameter for completeness without adding much length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use case and prerequisite. However, it omits the basemap parameter and scene_ids format, leaving gaps for an agent to fully invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It mentions scene_ids and how to pass them ('pass the scene_ids here') but does not explain the format (e.g., comma-separated or array) nor the basemap parameter. This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 visualizes STAC scene search results as a multi-layer footprint map, specifying what appears (bounding-box polygons grouped by collection) and details in popups. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stac_mosaic or stac_pairs_map.

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 explicitly instructs to run stac_search first and then pass scene_ids, providing a clear prerequisite and usage flow. It implies when to use this tool (after a search) but does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools