bbox-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.2.5
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: coordinate conversion, Overpass querying, H3 indexing, URL generation, and tag discovery. There is no ambiguity between tools like aggregate_overpass_h3 and search_overpass due to detailed descriptions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_bounds, list_osm_tags, search_overpass). The naming is perfectly consistent across all six tools.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server covers core spatial operations without being too heavy or too light. Each tool serves a necessary function for bounding box-based OSM queries and H3 analysis.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers essential workflows: coordinate parsing, Overpass query execution, H3 analysis, tag discovery, and URL generation. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for reverse geocoding or listing OSM categories beyond tag lookup, but the surface is largely complete for the domain.
Average 3.9/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on May 1, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden but only states 'executes and bins'. It does not disclose if the query is read-only, any side effects, rate limits, or the structure of the output (e.g., hexagon counts). This omission significantly reduces transparency.
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?
A single sentence of 18 words efficiently conveys the core action. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, with no filler or redundancy.
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?
Despite low complexity (4 params, oneOf), the description fails to explain the mutual exclusivity of location/bbox, the output format, or how the H3 binning works. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior without additional context.
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 description adds limited value. It relates 'resolution' to binning but adds no new meaning for location, bbox, or query beyond their schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool executes an Overpass query and bins results into H3 hexagons, a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like search_overpass (raw results) and get_h3_indices (just indices) by emphasizing spatial density analysis.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or that location and bbox are mutually exclusive (only implied by schema).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions input format support and the required MAPBOX_ACCESS_TOKEN env var for location, but does not detail side effects, rate limits, or output behavior beyond basic geometry options.
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, consisting of two efficient sentences that front-load the core purpose without extraneous information.
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 description covers input parameters and options but does not explain the default return format (a list of H3 cell IDs) or provide any output schema, leaving the agent somewhat uncertain about what to expect when return_geometry is false.
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?
Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mainly summarizing input formats already detailed in the bbox parameter and reiterating the oneOf constraint.
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 tool's action ('Get Uber H3 cell indices') and specifies the spatial context ('bounding box area at a target resolution') and input formats, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on aggregation, searching, or sharing.
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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among sibling tools. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes the input formats but does not mention side effects (e.g., no modifications), required permissions, error handling, or rate limits. For a read-only URL generator, the lack of explicit safety cues is a gap.
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 concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and listing input formats without extraneous detail. Every word adds value.
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 the low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential functionality and input constraints. It could optionally include an example URL or mention of the exact bounding box format, but is largely sufficient.
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%—the single parameter 'bbox' is well-documented in the schema. The description adds context about supported formats, but this does not significantly exceed the schema's own description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's purpose: generating a URL for the visual Bounding Box tool. It specifies the output (a URL) and the input formats (WKT, GeoJSON, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_bounds' or 'search_overpass', which serve different functions.
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 generating map URLs from coordinates, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It describes the tool as a 'discovery tool' and 'look up,' implying a safe read operation, but does not disclose additional traits like idempotence, rate limits, or whether it accesses external data. For a simple lookup, this is adequate but not thorough.
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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main use case and rationale. It lacks detail about the return format or behavior, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete.
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%: the input schema already includes a clear description of the 'category' parameter with examples. The tool description does not add meaningful parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 tool's function: 'look up the correct OpenStreetMap tags for a given category.' It uses a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('OSM tags'), and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on Overpass queries, bounds, and H3 indices.
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 provides usage context: 'Helps prevent hallucinating incorrect tags before writing an Overpass query.' This implies appropriate use before querying. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral aspects. It explains input formats, default EPSG, and that MBR is extracted. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention any side effects or limitations beyond the environment variable dependency.
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?
Description is only three sentences, all dense with information: purpose, supported formats, and a critical usage condition. No redundant words. Front-loaded with the core action.
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 the schema's 100% description coverage and absence of output schema, the description adequately covers the main use cases and constraints. It explains the two required parameter groups, format options, and EPSG handling. Minor gap: no mention of what happens if both 'location' and 'bbox' are provided (though schema enforces oneOf).
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context beyond schema: for 'location', it mentions the MAPBOX_ACCESS_TOKEN requirement; for 'bbox', it explains MBR extraction; for 'epsg', it notes over 3,900 bundled projections and auto-fetching. This enriches parameter understanding.
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 tool's purpose: 'Get converted coordinates for a bounding box or text location search.' It specifies the core functionality (coordinate conversion) and distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with Overpass, H3 indices, etc.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use 'bbox' vs 'location': if MAPBOX_ACCESS_TOKEN is not set, must provide explicit coordinates via 'bbox'. This helps agents decide which parameter to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that the server wraps queries in spatial filters, requires MAPBOX_ACCESS_TOKEN for location, and returns structured JSON with a map link. Does not mention error behavior or rate limits, but those are less critical.
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?
Well-structured with sections (SEARCH MODES, COMMON TAG EXAMPLES) and front-loaded purpose. Could be slightly shorter, but the readability is high and each sentence adds value.
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 explains return format ('structured JSON with a map link') briefly. It covers the main functionality and constraints, but could elaborate on error cases or pagination. Still, it's sufficient for typical use.
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?
All 5 parameters are described in schema (100% coverage). Description adds value with search mode rules, examples, and contextual hints (e.g., radius only for explicit distances). Exceeds schema detail significantly.
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 tool executes an Overpass QL query to find OSM features, specifying the return format and spatial filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like aggregate_overpass_h3 or list_osm_tags by focusing on raw query execution.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use bounding box vs radius, and when to include radius_meters (only with explicit distances). Lacks explicit mention of when not to use the tool overall, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bbox-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/iamvibhorsingh/bbox-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/iamvibhorsingh/bbox-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bbox-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/iamvibhorsingh/bbox-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/iamvibhorsingh/bbox-mcp-server)

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/iamvibhorsingh/bbox-mcp-server'

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