Skip to main content
Glama
atlasfetch-dev

atlasfetch-mcp

Official
by atlasfetch-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Create a boundary set

create_boundary_set

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

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 nothing this server can call tells it its own key's id. So this tool can create the set and add boundaries to it, but the FIRST grant has to happen in the dashboard: tell the user to switch the set on and grant it to the key this server uses, at https://atlasfetch.xyz/dashboard.

Input 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?

Discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait that no annotation conveys: a new set is created unavailable and ungranted, so it matches nothing until both are changed. It explains the root cause (grants are addressed by API key id, which the server cannot discover about itself) and prescribes the exact remediation and dashboard URL. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the critical caveat follows, with the actionable instruction to relay to the user placed last. It is a bit long, but nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant information; the 'not a bug' framing is slightly defensive but justified given the surprising behavior.

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?

Covers creation semantics, the grant gap, and the required user follow-up thoroughly for a mutating one-parameter tool. With no output schema, it does not say whether the new set's identifier is returned or how an agent should reference the set in a subsequent add_boundary call, which is the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'name' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the pattern constraint, so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. The phrase 'named set' only echoes what the schema already says, making baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates an empty named set to hold your own polygons') and illustrates the kind of content it holds (delivery zones, service areas, sales territories). This clearly separates it from add_boundary, which populates an existing set.

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?

Implies the create-then-add workflow ('this tool can create the set and add boundaries to it') and gives concrete use cases, so an agent knows when to reach for it. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or stating a when-not condition relative to list_boundary_sets or add_boundary.

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