Skip to main content
Glama
atlasfetch-dev

atlasfetch-mcp

Official
by atlasfetch-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Create a boundary set

create_boundary_set

Creates an empty named set for storing custom polygons like delivery zones, service areas, and sales territories. New sets remain unavailable until granted to an API key via the AtlasFetch dashboard.

Instructions

Creates an empty named set to hold your own polygons: delivery zones, service areas, sales territories.

IMPORTANT, and not a bug: a new set is created unavailable and granted to no key, so it matches nothing until both are changed. Granting is addressed by API key id, and the only endpoint that lists key ids needs a browser session — which this server does not have. So this tool can create the set and add boundaries to it, but CANNOT make it queryable. Tell the user to finish that at https://atlasfetch.xyz/dashboard.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesA short name, used to reference the set in lookups: 1-32 letters, digits, hyphens or underscores, starting with a letter or digit.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.1.4
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"A short name, used to reference the set in lookups."New value: +"A short name, used to reference the set in lookups: 1-32 letters, digits, hyphens or underscores, starting with a letter or digit."
    • removedInput schema / properties / name / maxLength
      Removed value: -32
    • removedInput schema / properties / name / minLength
      Removed value: -1
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / pattern
      Added value: +"^[a-zA-Z0-9][a-zA-Z0-9_-]{0,31}$"
  2. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, etc.), the description discloses the critical non-obvious behavior: the new set is unavailable and granted to no key, matches nothing until changed, and cannot be made queryable because the server has no browser session. This is exactly the kind of hidden trait an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses a clearly marked IMPORTANT block for the critical caveat. The warning is a little verbose but every sentence carries necessary information about the limitation and required user follow-up.

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 one-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the hidden behavior, and the required external follow-up. It does not describe the response/return value, but that is not essential enough to drop below a 4 given the rich caveat.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage for the single `name` parameter, including pattern and length. The tool description adds only the notion of a 'named set' and does not deepen parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a precise verb and object: 'Creates an empty named set to hold your own polygons...' and gives concrete use cases. It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_boundary_sets, lookup_location, and add_boundary, which perform listing, lookup, and adding rather than creation.

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?

It clearly situates the tool as a creation step for polygon sets and warns that this tool cannot make the set queryable, instructing the agent to tell the user to finish at the dashboard. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead' comparison to sibling tools, but the context is clear enough.

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