GIS MCP Server

by mahdin75

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

difference

Compute the geometric difference between two input geometries to identify areas present in one but not the other.

Instructions

Find difference between geometries.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "geometry1": "<geometry1>",
      "geometry2": "<geometry2>"
    },
    "name": "difference"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`geometry1`	Yes
`geometry2`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.0.0Jan 2, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / geometry1 / title
```
Removed value: -"Geometry1"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / geometry2 / title
```
Removed value: -"Geometry2"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"differenceArguments"
```
- changedOutput schema / (root)
```
Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}
```
First observedAug 19, 2025

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation, omitting details about input formats, output, error cases, or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. It lacks essential detail and does not earn its place as a useful description.

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 the complexity of geometric difference operations, one sentence is insufficient. The output schema exists but is not referenced, and the description does not cover edge cases or prerequisites.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters. 'geometry1' and 'geometry2' are left undefined, providing no additional meaning beyond their names.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'find' and the resource 'difference between geometries', making the purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this operation from the sibling 'symmetric_difference', which could lead to confusion.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'intersection', 'union', or 'symmetric_difference', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server