overture-maps

overture_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search intersecting features in a bounded WGS84 area across six themes. Filter by attributes, paginate results, and retrieve geometries or metrics.

Instructions

Search intersecting features in a bounded WGS84 area across any of the six themes.

    Name is literal case-insensitive substring; category is exact taxonomy.primary (places).
    Confidence is places-only. Invalid filters produce errors rather than being ignored.
    Pass next_cursor unchanged with the same explicit release/filters for the next page.
    Choose bounds, center/radius_m, or GeoJSON Polygon/MultiPolygon (holes supported).
    All properties are available; fields selects paths. filters combines up to 20 typed
    AND conditions, including nested/list paths (sources[].dataset). No user SQL.
    Distance order needs center; include_metrics returns whole-feature m² / line meters.
    geojson returns a paginated FeatureCollection; retain the response provenance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	No
`limit`	No
`theme`	Yes
`bounds`	No
`center`	No
`cursor`	No
`fields`	No
`filters`	No
`polygon`	No
`release`	No
`sort_by`	No	id
`category`	No
`radius_m`	No
`feature_type`	Yes
`feature_class`	No
`output_format`	No	features
`min_confidence`	No
`include_metrics`	No
`include_geometry`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`data`	Yes
`scope`	No
`theme`	No
`source`	Yes
`license`	Yes
`release`	Yes
`warnings`	No
`next_cursor`	No
`feature_type`	No
`attribution_url`	No	https://docs.overturemaps.org/attribution/

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavior on top: invalid filters raise errors instead of being silently ignored, confidence is places-only, no user SQL is accepted, distance ordering requires a center, include_metrics returns whole-feature m² / line meters, and geojson returns a paginated FeatureCollection whose provenance should be retained.

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?

Tight, front-loaded, and every line carries information with no filler. The terse fragment style (several dropped subjects) slightly reduces readability, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, and pagination/error/metrics behavior is covered. However, for a 19-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the required feature_type and the theme/feature_class vocabularies are never explained, leaving an agent guessing at valid inputs for mandatory fields.

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?

At 0% schema coverage the description carries the burden and handles the hard parameters well: name as literal case-insensitive substring, category as exact taxonomy.primary, cursor/release pagination coupling, the three geometry input modes, the filters grammar (up to 20 typed AND conditions, nested/list paths like sources[].dataset), sort_by='distance' needing center, and include_metrics units. It does not explain required feature_type or theme/feature_class values, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Clear verb+resource+scope: 'Search intersecting features in a bounded WGS84 area across any of the six themes.' Specific enough that an agent can tell it apart from retrieval-by-id or nearest-search siblings by the bounded-area framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives operational rules (pass next_cursor unchanged with the same release/filters; distance order needs center; choose bounds, center/radius_m, or polygon; invalid filters error rather than being ignored), which implies when and how to use it. But it never says when to prefer a sibling like overture_nearest or overture_spatial_join, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server