What can you do with this server?

bamwor-mcp-server provides AI agents with access to comprehensive global geographic data covering 261 countries and 13.4 million cities. * Get country details — Retrieve population, area, capital, region, coordinates, and 20+ statistics for any country by name, slug, or ISO code * Search countries — Find countries by name or keyword (up to 50 results) * Search cities — Look up cities from a database of 13.4 million cities by name or partial name * List cities by country — Browse cities within a specific country, filterable by minimum population and sortable by population or name * Compare countries — Side-by-side comparison of two countries across population, area, GDP, HDI, life expectancy, and more * Country rankings — Get rankings by population, area, GDP, HDI, life expectancy, and 9 proprietary Bamwor indices * City details — Retrieve coordinates, population, elevation, timezone, and province for a specific city via GeoNames ID * Nearby cities — Find cities near a given location within a specified radius * Multi-language support — Data available in English, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian Compatible with Claude Desktop, Cursor, Windsurf, and any MCP-compatible client.

bamwor-mcp-server

by bamwor-dev

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Remote

bamwor-mcp-server

MCP Server for world geographic data — 261 countries, 13.4M cities. Connect AI agents to real country and city data.

Works with Claude Desktop, Cursor, Windsurf, and any MCP-compatible client.

Quick Start

npx bamwor-mcp-server

Or install globally:

npm install -g bamwor-mcp-server
bamwor-mcp-server

Related MCP server: geomelon-mcp

Configuration

Claude Desktop

Add to your claude_desktop_config.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "bamwor-world-data": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "bamwor-mcp-server"],
      "env": {
        "BAMWOR_API_KEY": "your_api_key"
      }
    }
  }
}

Cursor / Windsurf

Add to your MCP settings:

{
  "bamwor-world-data": {
    "command": "npx",
    "args": ["-y", "bamwor-mcp-server"],
    "env": {
      "BAMWOR_API_KEY": "your_api_key"
    }
  }
}

Environment Variables

Variable	Required	Default	Description
`BAMWOR_API_KEY`	No	(anonymous)	API key for full access. Get one free at bamwor.com/en/developers/quickstart
`BAMWOR_API_URL`	No	`https://bamwor.com/api/v1`	API base URL override
`BAMWOR_REQUEST_TIMEOUT`	No	`15000`	Request timeout in ms

Available Tools (8)

get_country

Get detailed data about a country by name, slug, or ISO code. Returns population, area, capital, region, coordinates, and 20+ statistics.

Input: { "query": "Japan" }

search_countries

Search for countries by name or keyword. Returns matching countries with basic data.

Input: { "query": "south", "limit": 10 }

search_cities

Search for cities worldwide by name from a database of 13.4M cities.

Input: { "query": "Tokyo", "limit": 5 }

list_cities_by_country

List cities in a specific country, sorted by population or name. Supports minimum population filter.

Input: { "country": "brazil", "min_population": 1000000, "limit": 10 }

compare_countries

Compare two countries side by side across all available metrics: population, area, GDP, HDI, life expectancy, and more.

Input: { "country_a": "France", "country_b": "Germany" }

get_rankings

Get country rankings by metric. Available metrics: population, area, gdp, hdi, life-expectancy, and 9 Bamwor proprietary indices (ibeu, ibcp, ibda, ibcx, ibee, ibfm, ibdi, ibed, ibsa). Omit metric to list all available.

Input: { "metric": "population", "limit": 10, "countries_only": true }

get_city

Get detailed information about a specific city by its GeoNames ID. Returns coordinates, population, elevation, timezone, and province.

Input: { "city_id": 1850147 }

get_nearby_cities

Find cities near a specific city using PostGIS radius search. Returns nearby cities with distance in km.

Input: { "city_id": 1850147, "radius": 50, "limit": 10 }

Data Coverage

261 countries and territories with 20+ statistics each
13.4 million cities with coordinates, population, elevation, timezone
9 proprietary indices (IBEU, IBCP, IBDA, IBCX, IBEE, IBFM, IBDI, IBED, IBSA)
Rankings by any metric
Country comparisons — 67,860 combinations
4 languages — English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian

Data sourced from CIA World Factbook, GeoNames, UNDP, and World Bank.

License

MIT

Available Tools

5 tools

compare_countriesC

Compare two countries side by side across all available metrics: population, area, GDP, HDI, life expectancy, and more.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`country_a`	Yes	First country name or slug (e.g. "brazil", "Japan")
`country_b`	Yes	Second country name or slug (e.g. "argentina", "South Korea")

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions comparing 'across all available metrics' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, source limitations, error handling for invalid country names, or whether the comparison is side-by-side in a structured format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries external data.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by separating metric examples, but it avoids redundancy and wastes no words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the comparison output looks like (e.g., table, JSON), how metrics are presented, or potential limitations. For a data-fetching tool with two parameters, this leaves the agent guessing about behavior and results.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (country names or slugs). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the parameters represent the two countries to compare, but doesn't provide additional context like format constraints or examples beyond what's in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: comparing two countries across multiple metrics. It specifies the verb 'compare' and resource 'countries', and lists examples of metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_country' or 'search_countries', which might also provide country data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_country' (for single country data) or 'search_countries' (for filtering multiple countries), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for comparison scenarios.

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

get_countryB

Get detailed data about a country by name, slug, or ISO code. Returns population, area, capital, region, coordinates, and 20+ statistics.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Country name (e.g. "Brazil"), slug (e.g. "brazil"), or ISO code (e.g. "BR")

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return data (population, area, etc.), which is helpful, but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the query doesn't match), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

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 description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's function and output. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It lacks output schema, so the description should ideally explain return values more thoroughly, but it does list key statistics. With no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context, making it minimally viable.

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 100%, with the parameter 'query' well-documented in the schema as accepting country name, slug, or ISO code. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed data about a country by name, slug, or ISO code.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('country'), and input methods. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_countries' or 'compare_countries' beyond mentioning the detailed data returned.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_country' over 'search_countries' or 'compare_countries', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the description but not explicitly stated.

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

list_cities_by_countryB

List cities in a specific country, sorted by population or name. Supports minimum population filter. Covers 13.4M cities globally.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`country`	Yes	Country name or slug (e.g. "brazil", "Japan", "united-states")
`min_population`	No	Minimum population filter (e.g. 1000000 for cities above 1M)
`limit`	No	Maximum results to return (1-50, default 25)
`sort`	No	Sort order: "population" (default, descending) or "name" (ascending)	population

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be required, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the limit parameter), or what the output format looks like. The mention of '13.4M cities globally' adds some context but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 description is extremely concise - just two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, capabilities, and scope. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (city objects with what fields?), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The '13.4M cities' scope hint is helpful but doesn't compensate for missing output and behavioral information.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions sorting and minimum population filter but doesn't provide additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List'), resource ('cities'), and scope ('in a specific country'), with specific details about sorting and filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_cities' by emphasizing country-specific listing rather than general search.

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 description implies usage for listing cities within a country with sorting/filtering options, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_cities' or 'get_country'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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

search_citiesB

Search for cities worldwide by name. Returns matching cities from a database of 13.4M cities with population and country.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	City name or partial name to search for (min 2 characters)
`limit`	No	Maximum results to return (1-50, default 20)

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context: it mentions the database size (13.4M cities) and that results include population and country. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, which are important for a search operation.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful context about the database and return data without unnecessary details, making it efficient and well-structured.

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's moderate complexity (search with two parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic operation and return data, but lacks information on output format, error cases, or performance considerations, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the search is by name and returns matching cities, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for cities worldwide by name.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('cities'), and scope ('worldwide'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_cities_by_country' or 'search_countries', which is why it doesn't score a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_cities_by_country' or 'search_countries', nor does it specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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

search_countriesB

Search for countries by name or keyword, with optional region filter. Returns a list of matching countries with basic data.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Search term (country name, partial name, or keyword)
`limit`	No	Maximum results to return (1-50, default 25)

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'a list of matching countries with basic data,' which adds some behavioral context (output format). However, it lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or what 'basic data' entails, leaving gaps for a search operation.

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 concise and front-loaded in a single sentence, efficiently stating the tool's purpose and output. However, the mention of 'optional region filter' without corresponding schema support adds a minor inefficiency.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and output type but lacks details on error handling, data format, or how the 'region filter' works (since it's not in the schema). For a search tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters (query and limit). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional region filter,' but this isn't reflected in the input schema, creating a slight mismatch. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most param semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for countries by name or keyword, with optional region filter.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (countries), and scope (name/keyword with region filter). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_cities' or 'get_country' beyond the resource type, missing full sibling distinction.

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 description implies usage for searching countries by name/keyword with region filtering, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_country' (for specific country data) or 'search_cities' (for city searches). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

5 tool updatesv0.1.0Mar 14, 2026
- First observedcompare_countries
- First observedget_country
- First observedlist_cities_by_country
- First observedsearch_cities
- First observedsearch_countries

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: compare_countries compares two countries, get_country retrieves detailed data for one country, list_cities_by_country lists cities within a country, search_cities searches cities globally, and search_countries searches countries. The descriptions make it unambiguous which tool to use for each task.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_countries, get_country, list_cities_by_country, search_cities, search_countries). The verbs are clear and descriptive, and there are no deviations in naming style throughout the set.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for its geographic data domain. Each tool serves a specific and necessary function (comparing, retrieving, listing, and searching for countries and cities), and none feel redundant or missing for the apparent purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides strong coverage for querying and comparing country and city data, including search, retrieval, and comparison operations. A minor gap is the lack of update or creation tools, but this is reasonable for a read-only data server focused on geographic information, so agents can still perform core tasks effectively.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

geojp
io.github.55tarkun
MCP server for Japan geodata: cadastral lot numbers (chiban) and reverse geocoding, for AI agents.
Location Services Open Data Government Data
1
UnifAPI
com.unifapi
Hosted MCP server for live public-data APIs and Skills for AI agents.
Open Data Search AI & Machine Learning
2
mcp-perception A
com.geiant
Geospatial AI MCP server — satellite imagery, embeddings, weather, GNS governance
Location Services AI & Machine Learning Weather Services
82
openfolio
io.github.dodenbach
Agent-native MCP server over 49M+ US public and government records, privacy-first, always current.
Government Data Open Data Search
1

Related MCP Servers

Countries MCP Server
Search Open Data Government Data
bhayanak
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
MCP Server that gives AI assistants access to comprehensive country data from 250+ countries.
Updated 5 months ago (2026-03-28 19:11 UTC)
1
MIT
geomelon-mcp
Location Services Search
930m310n
A
license
A
quality
B
maintenance
MCP server for the Geomelon geographic API, enabling AI clients to search cities, countries, regions, and languages.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-17 20:06 UTC)
22
193
1
MIT
@terranode-co/mcp-serverofficial
Location Services Search
terranode-co
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
MCP server for spatial queries via the Terranode Geospatial API, enabling AI agents to perform point-in-polygon lookups, nearest feature search, distance calculations, and spatial joins.
Updated 5 months ago (2026-04-13 21:23 UTC)
6
65
MIT
Geo MCP Worker
Location Services Search
Kerry1020
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Free geospatial MCP server for AI agents, providing geocoding, reverse geocoding, POI search, and route planning using OpenStreetMap data via Nominatim, Overpass, and OSRM.
Updated 7 days ago (2026-08-29 15:29 UTC)
1
GPL 3.0

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bamwor-dev/bamwor-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server

bamwor-mcp-server

Quick Start

Configuration

Claude Desktop

Cursor / Windsurf

Environment Variables

Available Tools (8)

get_country

search_countries

search_cities

list_cities_by_country

compare_countries

get_rankings

get_city

get_nearby_cities

Data Coverage

Links

License

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Looking for Admin?

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

@terranode-co/mcp-serverofficial

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API