GIS MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_geometry_type

Determine the geometric type of any input geometry, such as point, line, or polygon, to support spatial data validation and classification.

Instructions

Get the type of a geometry.

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": {
      "geometry": "<geometry>"
    },
    "name": "get_geometry_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`geometry`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.0Jan 2, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / geometry / title
```
Removed value: -"Geometry"
```

removedInput schema / title

Removed value: -"get_geometry_typeArguments"

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 should disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action without mentioning return format, error handling, or any 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very concise, but omits necessary details about the parameter and output, making it overly minimal.

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 lack of annotations and schema descriptions, the tool description is incomplete; it does not explain what 'type' means or how to use the parameter.

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 parameter 'geometry' has no schema description (0% coverage) and the description does not clarify what format or value is expected, leaving a critical gap.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the type of a geometry, distinguishing it from sibling tools that return other geometry attributes like area or centroid.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other geometry inspection tools.

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

Deploy Server