GIS MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

make_valid

Repair invalid geospatial geometries, fixing topological issues like self-intersections to produce valid representations.

Instructions

Make a geometry valid.

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": "make_valid"
  }
}

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: -"make_validArguments"
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 19, 2025

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only says 'Make a geometry valid'. It omits important details such as whether the geometry is modified in-place or returned, error handling for already-valid geometries, or the format of the input string.

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 a single sentence and avoids fluff, but it is too short for a tool that likely requires more context. Conciseness is achieved at the cost of completeness.

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 existence of an output schema and only one simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain input format, definition of validity, return value, or error conditions, which are necessary for a new user.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has one parameter 'geometry' with 0% description coverage. The description adds only that it makes the geometry valid, not what format (WKT, GeoJSON) is expected or what 'valid' entails. This provides minimal added meaning.

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 action 'Make a geometry valid', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'is_valid' (which checks validity) and other geometry tools, but does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'is_valid' or other transformation tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or limitations.

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

Deploy Server