GIS MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

tile_raster

Divide a raster into square tiles of specified size and save each tile individually, enabling efficient handling and processing of large geospatial datasets.

Instructions

Split a raster into square tiles of a given size and save them individually.

Parameters:

source: input raster path.
tile_size: size of each tile (e.g., 256 or 512).
destination_dir: directory to store the tiles.

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": {
      "source": "<source>",
      "tile_size": "<tile_size>",
      "destination_dir": "<destination_dir>"
    },
    "name": "tile_raster"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes
`tile_size`	Yes
`destination_dir`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv1.0.0Jan 2, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / destination_dir / title
```
Removed value: -"Destination Dir"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / source / title
```
Removed value: -"Source"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / tile_size / title
```
Removed value: -"Tile Size"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"tile_rasterArguments"
```
- changedOutput schema / (root)
```
Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}
```
First observedAug 19, 2025

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention edge tile handling, tile format, coordinate system preservation, overwrite behavior, or side effects. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving behavioral gaps.

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, with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. No extraneous text. However, the parameter list could be integrated into the description to improve flow.

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, the description need not explain return values, but it should cover side effects (file writing) and prerequisites (directory existence, raster validity). The current description is incomplete for a tool that writes multiple files.

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 add meaning. It provides basic labels (e.g., 'input raster path') but does not specify constraints (e.g., tile_size positive integer, destination_dir autocreation, supported raster formats). This adds minimal value over parameter names.

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?

Clearly states the tool splits a raster into square tiles and saves them individually. The verb 'split' and resource 'raster' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling raster tools like clip_raster_with_shapefile or resample_raster.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, edge cases, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., extract_band) would be more appropriate.

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

Deploy Server