overpass-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

count_places

Count OpenStreetMap elements with a specific tag within a bounding box, providing a lightweight alternative to fetching full geometries.

Instructions

Count OSM elements matching a tag within a bounding box (cheaper than full geometry).

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": {
      "south": "<south>",
      "west": "<west>",
      "north": "<north>",
      "east": "<east>",
      "tag_key": "<tag_key>"
    },
    "name": "count_places"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`east`	Yes
`west`	Yes
`north`	Yes
`south`	Yes
`tag_key`	Yes
`tag_value`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description makes clear that the tool produces a count, not geometries, and hints at a performance advantage ('cheaper'). However, since no annotations are provided, it does not disclose details such as whether the count includes both nodes and ways, or any potential rate limits or exact matching behavior.

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 entire description is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the verb and includes the key context. Every word contributes value.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple counting tool, and the presence of an output schema handles return value details. However, the lack of parameter documentation and explicit usage guidance means the agent might need to rely on schema inspection and sibling context to fully understand invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'a tag' and 'bounding box' without mapping them to the parameter names. It doesn't clarify that tag_value is optional or explain the coordinate semantics beyond their numeric type ranges.

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 action (count), the object (OSM elements), the filter (matching a tag), and the scope (within a bounding box). The verb 'count' differentiates it from sibling tools that 'find' or 'geocode'.

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 phrase 'cheaper than full geometry' implies the tool is intended for lightweight count operations rather than retrieving geometries, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings like find_places_in_area or list_common_tags.

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

Deploy Server