Skip to main content
Glama
gander-tools

OpenStreetMap Tagging Schema MCP Server

by gander-tools

Validate OSM Tag

validate_tag

Validate an OpenStreetMap tag key-value pair against the official tagging schema, detecting deprecated tags, invalid keys, and incorrect values with localized guidance.

Instructions

Validate a single OpenStreetMap tag key-value pair against the OSM tagging schema. Performs comprehensive validation including: deprecation checking (identifies deprecated tags and suggests modern replacements), schema existence validation (verifies the tag key exists in the schema), option validation (checks if the value is in predefined options for that key), and field type checking (distinguishes between strict fields and combo fields that allow custom values). Returns detailed validation results with localized names and actionable messages. Use this for educational purposes, data quality checks, or validating individual tags before bulk operations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesThe OpenStreetMap tag key to validate (e.g., 'amenity', 'building', 'highway', 'natural'). Tag keys should use the standard OSM format with colons for namespaces (e.g., 'addr:street', 'name:en'). Case-sensitive.
valueYesThe OpenStreetMap tag value to validate against the specified key (e.g., 'restaurant', 'yes', 'residential', 'park'). Values are checked against predefined options if the field has them. Case-sensitive in most cases, though some fields may accept case-insensitive values.
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly describes the validation steps and what results include (localized names, actionable messages), implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not explicitly state idempotency, but that is reasonable for a validation 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 two paragraphs with clear structure: purpose in first sentence, bullet-like list of validations, and use cases. Every sentence adds value, no redundant text.

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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return value content (detailed results, localized names, messages). It addresses input parameters adequately and fits within the context of sibling tools. Could be more specific about output structure, but overall complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable context about OSM formatting (colons for namespaces), case sensitivity for keys and values, and value checking against options. This enhances understanding beyond the schema definitions.

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 explicitly states it validates a single OSM tag key-value pair against the schema, listing specific validations (deprecation, schema existence, option validation, field type checking). It distinguishes from siblings like validate_tag_collection and compare_tags by focusing on individual tags.

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?

The description recommends use for educational purposes, data quality checks, or before bulk operations, indicating when to use it. It implicitly contrasts with validate_tag_collection for multiple tags, but doesn't explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/gander-tools/osm-tagging-schema-mcp'

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