Skip to main content
Glama
cenogram-mcp-server

cenogram-mcp-server

Official

get_parcel_report

Read-only

Retrieve a complete Polish land parcel dossier in one call—core details, 13 spatial layers, transactions, local price and municipal context—instead of querying layers separately.

Instructions

The whole dossier for one land parcel in one call - prefer it over the per-layer parcel tools. Contains the parcel core (location, area, land use, plan designation); thirteen layers (flood, heritage, landslide, subsurface, nuisance surroundings, transit, general-plan zoning, buildings, building activity, agricultural eligibility, land-use and soil classification, nature, road access); the parcel's transactions (newest first, up to 20); local price context (county and gmina median zł/m², last 12 months); municipal context (demographics, infrastructure signals); and a parcel-shape section (outline geometry only). For a coordinate or 'locality + number' use resolve_parcel first; for a street address use list_parcels_in_area. Every section has its own state: covered; covered_no_data (checked, nothing found; billed); not_covered (outside our data; refunded); not_computed (did not finish in time; refunded - the report can be partial). Context sections use full / low_sample / suppressed / no_data (shape: full / no_data). Long lists are capped with a count of the rest. Reading it: the nearby designation signal comes from RCN deeds of neighbouring land, not from the planning register - it describes the neighbourhood, not this parcel; confirm with the local plan (MPZP) or a zoning decision. Neither it nor the shape section (geometry only) says whether a parcel can be built on or divided. Construction age is an ESTIMATE with an interval (permit records start in 2016), often "not established". Costs 45 API tokens, billed by outcome: an unresolvable parcel is refunded in full; a resolved parcel with no layer data pays only the 1-token core floor; with at least one covered layer, in full. Requests are rate-limited per API key per minute, so parallel agents sharing one key share the same limit. On a "Too many requests" response, wait the given seconds and retry sequentially.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
parcelIdYesFull cadastral id ('142907_2.0014.342/5' or the '-' form) or internal UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.18.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / parcelId / description
      Previous value: -"Full cadastral id ('142907_2.0014.342/5' or the '-' form) or the internal UUID from a search/resolve result."New value: +"Full cadastral id ('142907_2.0014.342/5' or the '-' form) or internal UUID."
  2. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Though annotations already declare readOnly/destructive=false, the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: billing (45 API tokens, refund rules per outcome), per-key per-minute rate limits with a sequential retry instruction for 'Too many requests', and the possibility of a partial report. It also flags interpretive caveats (RCN-derived neighbourhood signal, construction age as an estimate).

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?

Content is front-loaded: what it is, what's inside, then sibling routing, then state semantics, caveats, and billing. Nearly every sentence carries distinct information. It is dense and long, but the length is justified by the tool's complexity rather than padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a complex aggregate tool with no output schema, the description covers the section inventory, the per-section state vocabulary (covered / covered_no_data / not_covered / not_computed plus context variants), list capping, partial results, and interpretation limits. An agent could call and correctly interpret it from this alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and documents the single parcelId format fully, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds real value by explaining how to obtain a valid id (resolve_parcel for coordinates, list_parcels_in_area for addresses) and by tying id validity to the refund policy for unresolvable parcels.

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+resource ('whole dossier for one land parcel') and enumerates the exact contents (parcel core, thirteen layers, transactions, price context, municipal context, shape). It also explicitly contrasts itself with 'the per-layer parcel tools', so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit routing: 'prefer it over the per-layer parcel tools', 'for a coordinate or locality + number use resolve_parcel first', and 'for a street address use list_parcels_in_area'. It names alternatives and the precise condition that selects each, leaving nothing to inference.

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