Generate a buffer zone around a geometry at a specified distance. Control buffer shape with resolution, join style, mitre limit, and single-sided option for precise spatial analysis.
Create a buffer around a geometry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| geometry | Yes | ||
| distance | Yes | ||
| resolution | No | ||
| join_style | No | ||
| mitre_limit | No | ||
| single_sided | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as units of distance, supported geometry types, or behavior with negative distance. It only states the basic operation without any additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but it is under-specified for a tool with multiple parameters. It does not waste words but also does not earn its place by providing sufficient information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to cover parameter usage, edge cases, or caveats that an agent needs to know.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, but the tool description does not explain any parameter (e.g., what 'distance' means, how 'resolution' affects results). This leaves agents to infer meaning from parameter names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Create a buffer' on a 'geometry', indicating a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't detail the buffer operation (e.g., expansion/shrinkage), it is distinct enough from sibling tools like 'convex_hull' or 'envelope'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'simplify' or 'convex_hull'. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mahdin75/gis-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server