mcp-geoes

describe_service

Retrieve service metadata for a spatial data source, listing layers, extent, CRS, formats, and supported capabilities to determine what the source offers.

Instructions

Service metadata: layers with their ids, extent, CRS, formats, limits, and the capabilities this source actually supports.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "describe_service"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It signals a read-only metadata operation and adds a useful nuance: it returns capabilities the source 'actually supports,' not just declared capabilities. It does not discuss auth or errors, but the output schema covers the return shape and this is a benign describe 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It packs the output scope into a concise list, making it easy to scan, though it could have spent a few words on the source parameter.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values do not need to be fully spelled out. However, the one required parameter is left undocumented and there is no guidance on choosing this tool over closely related siblings, leaving a moderate gap.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never explains what 'source' should be — a service ID, URL, or name. The phrase 'this source' weakly ties the parameter to a service, but that is not enough for an agent to reliably construct valid input.

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 names the resource ('service') and enumerates the metadata contents: layers with ids, extent, CRS, formats, limits, and supported capabilities. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_layer or list_services, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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 it should be used when service-level metadata is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer describe_service over describe_layer or list_services, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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

Deploy Server