bbox-mcp-server

generate_share_url

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a shareable URL to preview bounding boxes on an interactive map from raw coordinates, WKT, GeoJSON, ogrinfo extents, or z/x/y tiles.

Instructions

Generates a URL that links to the visual Bounding Box tool to display these coordinates on a map. Supports WKT, GeoJSON, ogrinfo extent, tile 'z/x/y', and raw coordinate strings as input.

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": {
      "bbox": "<bbox>"
    },
    "name": "generate_share_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bbox`	Yes	The geometry to parse. Can be a raw bounding box string ('lat1,lng1,lat2,lng2'), WKT, GeoJSON, tile 'z/x/y', or ogrinfo extent.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bbox`	Yes
`complete`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`share_url`	Yes
`provenance`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.0Nov 4, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / bbox / description

Previous value: -"The geometry to parse. Can be a raw bounding box string ('lat1,lng1,lat2,lng2'), WKT, GeoJSON, or ogrinfo extent."New value: +"The geometry to parse. Can be a raw bounding box string ('lat1,lng1,lat2,lng2'), WKT, GeoJSON, tile 'z/x/y', or ogrinfo extent."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "bbox": {
+      "properties": {
+        "lat1": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "lat2": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "lng1": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "lng2": {
+          "type": "number"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "lat1",
+        "lng1",
+        "lat2",
+        "lng2"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "complete": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "provenance": {
+      "properties": {
+        "attribution": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "cache_age_ms": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "cached": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "data_timestamp": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "provider": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "usage_policy": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "provider",
+        "data_timestamp",
+        "cached",
+        "cache_age_ms"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "share_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "warnings": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "bbox",
+    "share_url",
+    "provenance",
+    "complete",
+    "warnings"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.2.4Apr 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by identifying the output as a link into an external visual Bounding Box tool, which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of saying whether the URL is persistent, shareable across users, or has any length/expiry limits, which is the main behavioral question for a link-generating tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the input-format details, with no filler. Minor waste: the format enumeration duplicates the bbox schema description almost verbatim, so the second sentence earns less than its length suggests.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with a full output schema and complete annotation coverage, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: the destination and visual purpose of the generated URL. It leaves only secondary details (URL lifetime, sharing scope) unstated, which is a small gap rather than a blocking one.

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% and the bbox parameter already enumerates the same accepted formats (raw lat/lng string, WKT, GeoJSON, tile z/x/y, ogrinfo extent). The description's second sentence largely restates that list without adding parsing rules, precedence between formats, or how ambiguous strings are disambiguated, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 names a specific verb and artifact ('Generates a URL') plus the target ('visual Bounding Box tool to display these coordinates on a map'), which makes the outcome concrete. No sibling tool (get_bounds, spatial_calc, reverse_geocode, etc.) produces a shareable visualization link, so the agent can separate this tool from the rest of the family without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'display these coordinates on a map' hints the tool is for visual verification of a geometry, and the formats list hints at acceptable inputs. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no statement of prerequisites, and no named alternative for cases where a machine-readable geometry is needed instead (e.g. get_bounds).

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

Deploy Server