gbif-mcp

gebieden_rond

Find protected areas and statuses around a location or polygon in Flanders. Returns overlapping areas first, then nearest within radius.

Instructions

Beschermde gebieden en gebiedsstatuten rond een punt of polygoon: Natura 2000 (SBZ-H/SBZ-V, Ramsar), VEN/IVON, nationale parken, natuurreservaat-uitbreidingszones, natuurbeheerplannen, natuurrichtplannen, Sigma-natuurdoelen, ANB-domeinen, HPG/beschermde graslanden, Duinendecreet, beschermd erfgoed (landschap, dorpsgezicht, monument) en BWK (habitat, fauna, 3260).

Per laag: de gebieden die het punt bevatten of de polygoon overlappen (overlapt, afstand 0), anders de dichtstbijzijnde binnen straal_m met de afstand in meter (Lambert 72). Een laag met status niet_geraadpleegd gaf een fout: dat is geen 'geen gebied'. Bronnen: WFS Departement Omgeving (Mercator) en Digitaal Vlaanderen (BWK); alleen Vlaanderen.

Args: adres: adres of plaatsnaam (Digitaal Vlaanderen); of lat/lon (WGS84); of wkt (POLYGON, WGS84 lon lat). straal_m: zoekstraal (standaard 1000 m). lagen: kommagescheiden laag- of groepscodes: natura2000, natuur, beheer, erfgoed, bwk, of losse codes (hrl_gebied, vrl_gebied, ven_ivon, natuurbeheerplan, hpg, bwk_habitat, …). Leeg = alle lagen. max_treffers_per_laag: hoeveel treffers per laag worden teruggegeven (gesorteerd: overlap eerst, dan afstand).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lat`	No
`lon`	No
`wkt`	No
`adres`	No
`lagen`	No
`straal_m`	No
`max_treffers_per_laag`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`doel`	Yes
`lagen`	Yes
`straal_m`	Yes
`kanttekening`	Yes
`samenvatting`	No	Per laag met treffers: 'in <naam>' of 'dichtstbij <naam> op N m'.
`waarschuwingen`	No
`geraadpleegd_op`	Yes
`niet_geraadpleegd`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Sep 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains the selection logic (overlap first, then nearest within radius), distance in Lambert 72, error handling via 'niet_geraadpleegd', and that a layer with an error is not 'geen gebied'. It also discloses data sources and geographic limitations.

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 lengthy but information-dense and well-structured: it opens with a clear purpose, then explains behavior, sources, and parameters in logical sections. It front-loads the core functionality and avoids redundancy, though some sentences could be tightened.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, multiple layers, error states, geographic restrictions) and the presence of an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, and edge cases (error status, only Flanders), leaving little ambiguity for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters—and it does thoroughly. It clarifies 'adres' can be an address, lat/lon, or WKT (with coordinate system), defines 'straal_m', lists valid 'lagen' codes with examples, and explains 'max_treffers_per_laag' sorting. All seven parameters are covered with added meaning.

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 the tool returns protected areas and area statutes around a point or polygon, enumerating a detailed list of layer types (Natura 2000, VEN/IVON, etc.). It clearly defines the query behavior (overlap vs. nearest within radius) and geographic scope, making it distinct from sibling tools.

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 provides contextual constraints (only Flanders) and input flexibility, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when this tool is preferred over alternatives like 'kaart_gebieden' or 'soorten_in_gebied'. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server