Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to MCP4GVA

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      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.
      3 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      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.
      3 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      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.
      3 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      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.
      3 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