MCP4GVA
Related Servers
Alternatives to MCP4GVA
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables 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.3 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables searching and querying City of Lakeland, Florida open geospatial data (parcels, zoning, utilities) through ArcGIS Feature Services.3 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to search and query Los Angeles County open geospatial datasets (parcels, parks, etc.) via ArcGIS Feature Services.3 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables 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.3 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables 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.3 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables 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.3 npmMIT
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
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).
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.
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.
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.