overture-maps

overture_spatial_join

Read-onlyIdempotent

Relate features across Overture themes within a bounding box using spatial relations like intersects, within, contains, or within_distance. Count, list, or group matched pairs.

Instructions

Relate features across themes/types in one release and bounded area.

    Relation is left-to-right: places within division_area, or areas containing places.
    Both datasets are scoped to bounds; <=5000 candidates each or fail without partial
    analysis. pairs paginates pairs with properties/provenance; count returns total pairs;
    group_left returns every left ID with match count, including zero. within_distance
    needs distance_m and uses a local projected minimum geometry distance in meters.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`left`	Yes
`mode`	No	pairs
`limit`	No
`right`	Yes
`bounds`	Yes
`cursor`	No
`release`	No
`relation`	No	intersects
`distance_m`	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?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses a hard candidate cap ('<=5000 candidates each or fail without partial analysis'), pagination behavior, that group_left includes zero-match left IDs, and that within_distance uses a local projected minimum geometry distance in meters. These are non-obvious operational traits that materially affect calling behavior.

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 core concept is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences each add distinct semantics (direction, candidate limit, mode outputs, distance units). It is dense but nearly every clause earns its place, with only minor terseness in the pagination sentence.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is optional, yet the description helpfully characterizes what pairs/count/group_left produce. Combined with the candidate-cap and distance-metric disclosures, an agent has enough to invoke correctly, though per-parameter specifics remain thin.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does explain relation direction, the mode semantics, and distance_m units. However, left/right Dataset structure (theme, feature_type, fields, filters), bounds, limit, cursor, and release are left to the schema, so compensation is only partial.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Relate features across themes/types in one release and bounded area,' which distinguishes it as a spatial-join tool from siblings like overture_nearest or overture_search. It is clear but does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 through the relation and mode explanations (e.g., 'places within division_area, or areas containing places') and the note that 'within_distance needs distance_m,' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion against alternatives such as overture_nearest for proximity work. Guidance exists but 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