Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cenogram-mcp-server

cenogram-mcp-server

Official
by cenogram
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_transaction_nature

Read-only

Check a transaction by ID for parcel-level forest proximity and protected-area overlaps, including building restrictions and protected share.

Instructions

Parcel-by-parcel nature breakdown for one transaction: per linked plot with a nature signal - the nearest forest within 2 km (forest_distance_m, 0 = the plot overlaps forest, with the overlap share) and any overlapping protected areas: the sharpest form (protection_rank 1 = national park, 2 = nature reserve, 3 = Natura 2000, 4 = landscape park, 5 = protected landscape, 6 = other), building_restriction ('statutory_ban' = a ban following from the Nature Protection Act for parks and reserves, 'conditional' = depends on the establishing act), the share of the plot under protection and names. Search results carry no nature signal: call this directly on a transaction id when forest proximity or protected-area build limits matter. For a parcel with no transaction, get_parcel_report names the protected areas. It describes the SOURCE of a restriction, not a permitting outcome; not legal advice. An empty result is NEVER a statement that building is allowed (local plans and permit decisions are not covered). A buffer zone around a park or reserve is reported as 'buffer_zone' at rank 6, never as a statutory ban. An empty result says which kind it is: plots checked with no signal, or no nature data held yet - the second is never a finding of no forest or protected area. Cost: 4 tokens (refunded on any empty result).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
transactionIdNo
transaction_idNoTransaction id (UUID) from a search result. This or transactionId is required.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.18.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / transactionId
      Added value: +{
+  "pattern": "^[0-9a-f]{8}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{12}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / transaction_id / description
      Previous value: -"Transaction id (UUID) from a search_transactions / search_by_area / search_by_polygon result."New value: +"Transaction id (UUID) from a search result. This or transactionId is required."
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "transaction_id"
-]
  2. Addedv0.12.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With only readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: cost and refund policy, empty-result semantics, buffer-zone treatment, rank meanings, building-restriction meanings, and a legal disclaimer. It also clarifies that the tool describes the source of a restriction rather than a permitting outcome.

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 layers in caveats and semantics. It is dense and somewhat long, but most sentences earn their place by preventing misinterpretation of empty results and protected-area rankings.

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?

There is no output schema and annotations are minimal, so the description carries most of the explanatory burden. It covers the return concepts, empty-result distinctions, buffer-zone behavior, cost, and legal scope well enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 50%, so the description should compensate for gaps. It mentions calling on a transaction id from a search result, but it does not clarify the duplicated transactionId / transaction_id fields or their requiredness, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 gives a specific verb-and-resource purpose: a parcel-by-parcel nature breakdown for one transaction, covering forest proximity and overlapping protected areas. It distinguishes itself from search tools (which carry no nature signal) and from get_parcel_report for parcels without transactions.

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?

It explicitly says to call this directly on a transaction id when forest proximity or protected-area build limits matter, and it names get_parcel_report as the alternative for parcel-only lookups. It also warns that an empty result is never a statement that building is allowed.

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