osm-mcp

search_features

Search OpenStreetMap features by name or tag filters, with optional bounding box limiting results to a geographic area.

Instructions

Search OSM features by name (ILIKE) and/or tag filters, optional bbox.

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": "search_features"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bbox`	No
`limit`	No
`query`	No
`filters`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions ILIKE search (case-insensitive) and optional bbox filtering, but omits details like pagination, sorting, or behavior with zero results. The description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 sentence of 10 words, very concise. It front-loades the key verb and resources, but could benefit from slightly more structure to clarify the parameter roles.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits details on parameter formats, return values, and typical use cases, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. It mentions 'name (ILIKE)' (query), 'tag filters' (filters), and 'optional bbox' (bbox), but does not explain the 'limit' parameter or the format of the filters object. This partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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's purpose: searching OSM features by name (with case-insensitive pattern matching) and/or tag filters, with an optional bounding box. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'features_in_area' (area-based) and 'find_nearby' (proximity).

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 specifies the context (search by name and/or tags, optional bbox) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives. The sibling tool names suggest other specialized searches, but no direct guidance is given.

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

Deploy Server