Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ArcGIS Location Services MCP Server

ArcGIS Location Services MCP Server

by lwsinclair
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

get_basemap_tile

Retrieve static basemap tiles for any style, zoom level, and tile coordinate to build customized map visualizations.

Instructions

Access static basemap tiles service with different styles.

Args:
    version: API version (default: v1)
    style_base: The base style category (default: arcgis)
    style_name: Map style name (e.g., navigation, streets, satellite)
    row: Tile row coordinate
    level: Zoom level
    column: Tile column coordinate

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_basemap_tile"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowNo
levelNo
columnNo
versionNov1
style_baseNoarcgis
style_nameNonavigation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not disclose output format (image? URL?), error behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Only a minimal list of parameters is provided.

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?

Description is concise and structured as an Args list, making it easy to scan. The first sentence conveys the core purpose. It could benefit from more front-loading, but overall efficient.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits return value details, error handling, and usage context, which is necessary for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides one-line explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'style_name: Map style name (e.g., navigation, streets, satellite)'), which adds meaning but lacks detail on accepted values or formats.

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?

Description clearly states it accesses a static basemap tiles service with different styles. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like geocode or find_nearby_places, which serve different purposes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says what it does, not when it should be chosen over siblings like get_elevation or get_directions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools