Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to MCP4GVA

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables querying and searching Lancaster County, Pennsylvania open geospatial datasets (parcels, addresses, zoning, public works) via ArcGIS Feature Services. Supports dataset search, layer query with SQL-like filters, and schema retrieval.
      19 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables querying City of Irvine GIS open geospatial data (parcels, zoning, parks) via ArcGIS Feature Services, with tools to search datasets, query layers, and retrieve schema information.
      20 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables querying City of Lubbock open geospatial data (parcels, zoning, public works) through ArcGIS Feature Services, including searching datasets, querying layers with SQL-like filters, and retrieving schema info.
      17 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables querying and searching City of Tempe open geospatial datasets (parcels, zoning, etc.) through ArcGIS Feature Services. Supports dataset search, layer querying with SQL-like filters, and schema retrieval.
      298 npm
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The tools have mostly distinct purposes: gva_count counts features, gva_export_geojson exports data, gva_layer_info provides metadata, and gva_query retrieves features. However, gva_count and gva_query both involve WHERE clauses and could be slightly confused for simple counting tasks, though their outputs differ (count vs. feature list).

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent 'gva_' prefix with descriptive snake_case suffixes (e.g., count, export_geojson, layer_info, query). This pattern is uniform and predictable across all four tools, making them easy to identify and understand.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 4 tools, the count is reasonable for a GIS data server, covering core operations like querying, exporting, counting, and metadata retrieval. It might benefit from additional tools for updates or spatial analysis, but it's well-scoped for basic interactions.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools cover read operations (query, count, export, metadata) well for a GIS layer, but there are notable gaps: no create, update, or delete tools, which limits full CRUD lifecycle coverage. This could cause agent failures if modifications are needed, though it's sufficient for query and export workflows.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues