GIS MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

point_in_polygon

Check if points are inside polygons using a spatial join with the 'within' predicate. Specify paths to point and polygon geospatial files to identify containment.

Instructions

Check if points are inside polygons using spatial join (predicate='within'). Args: points_path: Path to the point geospatial file. polygons_path: Path to the polygon geospatial file. output_path: Optional path to save the result. Returns: Dictionary with status, message, and output info.

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": {
      "points_path": "<points_path>",
      "polygons_path": "<polygons_path>"
    },
    "name": "point_in_polygon"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`points_path`	Yes
`polygons_path`	Yes
`output_path`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv1.0.0Jan 2, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / output_path / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / output_path / title
```
Removed value: -"Output Path"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / output_path / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / points_path / title
```
Removed value: -"Points Path"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / polygons_path / title
```
Removed value: -"Polygons Path"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"point_in_polygonArguments"
```
- changedOutput schema / (root)
```
Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}
```
First observedAug 19, 2025

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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the spatial join and return type, but omits important details such as performance considerations, error handling, or the fate of input data. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise and uses a clear docstring-like structure with Args and Returns sections. The main functionality is front-loaded. Minor redundancy in the Returns section ('status, message, and output info') could be more specific, but overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is an output schema, so return value details are not needed in the description. The description covers the core functionality adequately for a simple tool. However, for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, it lacks depth in areas like file format constraints and error conditions, making it merely adequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists three parameters with brief explanations, but lacks details on file formats, CRS requirements, or defaults. The description adds some meaning but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Check'), the resources ('points inside polygons'), and the method ('spatial join with predicate='within''). It effectively differentiates from siblings like 'sjoin_gpd' by specifying the 'within' predicate.

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 such as 'sjoin_gpd' or 'overlay_gpd'. The description implies usage for point-in-polygon checks but does not provide context for when it is appropriate or what alternatives exist.

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

Deploy Server