Which integrations are available for this server?

Provides comprehensive documentation, code generation, and interactive tools for Leaflet.js, enabling AI assistants to help developers create maps, add markers, draw layers, handle GeoJSON, generate choropleth maps, convert coordinates, suggest plugins, search examples, and debug common issues.

How do I use leaflet-mcp-server?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@leaflet-mcp-server Create a map centered on Tokyo at zoom level 10" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

leaflet-mcp-server

by philgebauer

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Remote

Leaflet MCP Server

A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides comprehensive documentation, code generation, and interactive tools for Leaflet.js - the leading open-source JavaScript library for mobile-friendly interactive maps.

Overview

This MCP server enables AI assistants like Claude to help developers work with Leaflet.js by providing:

📚 Complete API Documentation - Full Leaflet API reference and quick start guides
🛠️ Code Generation Tools - Generate ready-to-use Leaflet code for common patterns
🔍 Smart Search - Find relevant examples and documentation quickly
🎨 Plugin Recommendations - Discover and integrate Leaflet plugins
🐛 Debugging Help - Solutions for common Leaflet issues
🗺️ Interactive Examples - Access to official Leaflet examples with code

Related MCP server: mapbox-mcp-server

Features

Resources

The server exposes four main documentation resources:

Leaflet API Reference (leaflet://docs/api-reference)
- Complete API documentation for all Leaflet classes
- Methods, options, and events for Map, Marker, TileLayer, Popup, etc.
- Vector layers (Polyline, Polygon, Circle, Rectangle)
- GeoJSON, LayerGroup, Controls, Events, and utility functions
Quick Start Guide (leaflet://docs/quick-start)
- Getting started with Leaflet
- Installation via CDN or npm
- Basic map setup and initialization
- Common patterns and troubleshooting
All Leaflet Examples (leaflet://examples/all)
- Collection of official Leaflet examples
- Mobile-friendly maps, custom icons, GeoJSON
- Choropleth maps, layer controls, accessibility
- Performance tips and best practices
Plugins Directory (leaflet://plugins/directory)
- Curated list of 40+ popular Leaflet plugins
- Organized by category (markers, drawing, visualization, controls, etc.)
- Installation instructions and code examples
- Links to GitHub repositories

Tools

The server provides 10 powerful tools for working with Leaflet:

1. create_map

Generate complete Leaflet map initialization code with HTML boilerplate.

Parameters:

center (required): {lat: number, lng: number} - Map center coordinates
zoom: Initial zoom level (0-19, default: 13)
tileProvider: Tile provider - "openstreetmap", "cartodb", or "stamen"
containerId: HTML element ID (default: "map")
includeHTML: Include full HTML page (default: true)

Example Use Case:

"Create a map centered on San Francisco at zoom level 12"

2. add_marker

Generate code for adding markers with popups, tooltips, and custom icons.

Parameters:

position (required): {lat: number, lng: number} - Marker position
popup: Popup content (HTML supported)
tooltip: Tooltip text
draggable: Make marker draggable (default: false)
customIcon: Include custom icon setup code (default: false)

Example Use Case:

"Add a draggable marker at Golden Gate Bridge with a popup"

3. create_layer

Generate code for creating vector layers (polylines, polygons, circles, rectangles).

Parameters:

layerType (required): "polyline", "polygon", "circle", "rectangle", or "circleMarker"
coordinates: Array of {lat, lng} objects (for polylines/polygons)
center: {lat, lng} for circles/circle markers
radius: Radius in meters (for circles) or pixels (for circle markers)
style: Styling options (color, weight, opacity, fillColor, fillOpacity)
popup: Popup content for the layer

Example Use Case:

"Draw a red polygon around downtown Seattle"

4. add_popup

Generate code for creating and customizing popups.

Parameters:

content (required): Popup content (HTML supported)
position: {lat, lng} for standalone popups
maxWidth: Maximum width in pixels (default: 300)
attachTo: "marker", "layer", or "latlng" (default: "marker")

Example Use Case:

"Create a popup with an image and button"

5. create_geojson_layer

Generate code for loading and displaying GeoJSON data with custom styling.

Parameters:

dataSource: "inline", "url", or "variable" (default: "inline")
includeExample: Include example GeoJSON data (default: true)
style: Default style object for features
onEachFeature: Include onEachFeature handler example (default: true)
filter: Include filter function example (default: false)

Example Use Case:

"Load GeoJSON from a URL and style features by property"

6. create_choropleth

Generate code for creating interactive choropleth (data visualization) maps.

Parameters:

dataProperty: Property name to visualize from GeoJSON (default: "density")
colorScheme: "sequential", "diverging", or "qualitative" (default: "sequential")
steps: Number of color steps (default: 5)
includeLegend: Include legend control (default: true)
includeInteraction: Include hover effects and info box (default: true)

Example Use Case:

"Create a population density choropleth map with legend"

7. convert_coordinates

Convert between different coordinate formats and validate coordinates.

Parameters:

input (required): Coordinates in any common format
outputFormat: "decimal", "dms", "leaflet", or "geojson" (default: "leaflet")

Supported Input Formats:

Decimal degrees: 51.505, -0.09
Array format: [51.505, -0.09]
DMS: 51°30'18"N 0°5'24"W

Example Use Case:

"Convert 40.7128° N, 74.0060° W to Leaflet format"

8. suggest_plugin

Get recommendations for Leaflet plugins based on functionality or category.

Parameters:

functionality: What you're looking for (e.g., "heatmap", "clustering", "routing")
category: "markers", "overlays", "vector", "data", "controls", "interaction", "animation", or "tile"

Example Use Case:

"Find a plugin for marker clustering"
"Suggest plugins for drawing shapes"

9. search_examples

Search through official Leaflet examples for specific functionality.

Parameters:

query (required): Search term (e.g., "mobile", "geojson", "choropleth")
includeCode: Include code snippets in results (default: true)

Example Use Case:

"Show me examples of custom marker icons"
"Find examples for mobile geolocation"

10. debug_common_issues

Get help debugging common Leaflet problems.

Parameters:

issue (required): Issue type
- "map-not-showing"
- "tiles-not-loading"
- "markers-not-appearing"
- "icons-broken"
- "popup-not-working"
- "controls-missing"
- "other"
description: Detailed description of the problem

Example Use Case:

"Why is my map not showing?"
"Help fix broken marker icons in webpack"

Installation

As an MCP Server

Clone or download this repository:

git clone <repository-url>
cd leaflet-mcp-server

Install dependencies:
```
npm install
```
Build the server:
```
npm run build
```
Configure your MCP client (e.g., Claude Desktop):
Add to your MCP settings file:
macOS/Linux: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
```
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "leaflet": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/absolute/path/to/leaflet-mcp-server/build/index.js"]
    }
  }
}
```
Restart your MCP client to load the server.

Development Mode

Watch for changes during development:

npm run watch

Usage Examples

Once configured, you can ask your AI assistant questions like:

Getting Started

"Create a basic Leaflet map centered on Tokyo"
"Show me how to add a marker with a popup"
"How do I initialize a Leaflet map?"

Working with Data

"Load GeoJSON data from a URL and display it on the map"
"Create a choropleth map showing population density"
"How do I style GeoJSON features based on properties?"

Customization

"Add a draggable marker with a custom icon"
"Draw a circle with a 500-meter radius around a point"
"Create a polygon and add a popup to it"

Finding Solutions

"Why aren't my map tiles loading?"
"Find a plugin for clustering markers"
"Show me examples of custom marker icons"
"Convert these GPS coordinates to Leaflet format"

Advanced Features

"How do I create a heatmap in Leaflet?"
"Find plugins for drawing and editing shapes"
"Show me how to use layer controls"

Architecture

Project Structure

leaflet-mcp-server/
├── src/
│   ├── index.ts        # Main MCP server implementation
│   ├── tools.ts        # Code generation tool implementations
│   ├── docs.ts         # API reference and quick start documentation
│   ├── examples.ts     # Official Leaflet examples collection
│   └── plugins.ts      # Curated plugins directory
├── build/              # Compiled JavaScript (generated)
├── package.json        # Project metadata and dependencies
├── tsconfig.json       # TypeScript configuration
└── README.md          # This file

Technical Details

Language: TypeScript compiled to ES2022
Module System: ES Modules (Node16)
MCP SDK: @modelcontextprotocol/sdk v1.0.4+
Runtime: Node.js (requires ES2022 support)
Transport: stdio (standard input/output)

How It Works

Server Initialization:
- The server starts and listens on stdio
- Registers resources (documentation) and tools (code generators)
- Waits for requests from MCP clients
Resource Access:
- Clients can read documentation resources via URI scheme (leaflet://)
- Resources return formatted markdown content
- Content includes code examples and API references
Tool Execution:
- Clients invoke tools with structured parameters
- Tools generate appropriate Leaflet code based on parameters
- Results include code snippets with explanations and next steps
Communication:
- All communication uses the Model Context Protocol
- Requests and responses are JSON-RPC formatted
- Server is stateless - each request is independent

API Documentation

Resource URIs

URI	Description	Content
`leaflet://docs/api-reference`	Complete Leaflet API	Classes, methods, options, events
`leaflet://docs/quick-start`	Getting started guide	Installation, setup, common patterns
`leaflet://examples/all`	Official examples	15+ example tutorials with code
`leaflet://plugins/directory`	Plugins catalog	40+ plugins organized by category

Tool Schemas

All tools follow the MCP tool schema format with:

name: Tool identifier
description: What the tool does
inputSchema: JSON Schema for parameters

See the Tool Details section above for complete parameter documentation.

Development

Prerequisites

Node.js 16+ (with ES2022 support)
npm or yarn
TypeScript knowledge (optional, for modifications)

Building from Source

# Install dependencies
npm install

# Build once
npm run build

# Watch mode (auto-rebuild on changes)
npm run watch

# Prepare for distribution
npm run prepare

Adding New Tools

Add tool implementation in src/tools.ts:

export function myNewTool(args: any): string {
  // Implementation
  return formattedResult;
}

Register tool in src/index.ts:

// In ListToolsRequestSchema handler
{
  name: "my_new_tool",
  description: "What this tool does",
  inputSchema: { /* JSON Schema */ }
}

// In CallToolRequestSchema handler
case "my_new_tool": {
  const result = myNewTool(args);
  return { content: [{ type: "text", text: result }] };
}

Rebuild and test:
```
npm run build
```

Adding New Resources

Add content in appropriate file (src/docs.ts, src/examples.ts, etc.)

Register in src/index.ts:

// In ListResourcesRequestSchema handler
{
  uri: "leaflet://my/resource",
  mimeType: "text/plain",
  name: "Resource Name",
  description: "Resource description"
}

// In ReadResourceRequestSchema handler
if (uri === "leaflet://my/resource") {
  return {
    contents: [{
      uri,
      mimeType: "text/plain",
      text: MY_RESOURCE_CONTENT
    }]
  };
}

Common Use Cases

Web Development

Quickly scaffold new map applications
Add interactive mapping features to existing sites
Prototype location-based features
Learn Leaflet API through examples

Data Visualization

Create choropleth maps for data analysis
Display geographic datasets
Build dashboards with embedded maps
Visualize spatial data from GeoJSON

Mobile Development

Implement mobile-friendly maps
Add geolocation features
Optimize for touch interactions
Build responsive map interfaces

Education & Learning

Learn Leaflet.js through guided examples
Understand mapping concepts
Explore plugin ecosystem
Debug common issues

Troubleshooting

Server Not Connecting

Problem: MCP client can't connect to the server

Solutions:

Verify the path in your MCP config is absolute and correct
Ensure the build directory exists: npm run build
Check that Node.js is in your PATH
Look for errors in your MCP client logs
Restart your MCP client after configuration changes

Build Errors

Problem: npm run build fails

Solutions:

Delete node_modules and build directories
Run npm install again
Check Node.js version: node --version (need 16+)
Ensure TypeScript is installed correctly

Tool Not Working

Problem: Tool returns unexpected results

Solutions:

Check parameter types match the schema
Verify required parameters are provided
Look for error messages in tool output
Try with minimal parameters first

Documentation Not Loading

Problem: Resource content is empty or incorrect

Solutions:

Rebuild the server: npm run build
Check that source files in src/ are unchanged
Verify URI syntax in requests

Resources

Contributing

Contributions are welcome! Here are ways to help:

Report Issues: Found a bug or have a suggestion? Open an issue
Add Tools: Implement new code generation tools
Improve Documentation: Enhance inline docs and examples
Add Plugin Info: Suggest additional plugins for the directory
Share Use Cases: Tell us how you're using this server

License

MIT License - see LICENSE file for details

Acknowledgments

Leaflet.js - Created by Vladimir Agafonkin and maintained by the open-source community
Model Context Protocol - Developed by Anthropic
Plugin Authors - Thanks to all Leaflet plugin maintainers
OpenStreetMap - For providing free map data

Version History

1.0.0 (Current)

Initial release
10 code generation tools
4 documentation resources
Complete API reference
40+ plugin recommendations
Official examples collection
Common issue debugger

Built with ❤️ for the Leaflet and MCP communities

For questions, issues, or feedback, please open an issue on GitHub.

Available Tools

10 tools

add_markerB

Generate code for adding markers to a Leaflet map with optional popups, tooltips, and custom icons.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`position`	Yes	Marker position
`popup`	No	Popup content (HTML supported)
`tooltip`	No	Tooltip text
`draggable`	No	Make marker draggable
`customIcon`	No	Include custom icon setup code

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool generates code, but does not explain the output format, side effects (e.g., does it require an existing map?), or any error conditions. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the main action. No extraneous information is present, and it efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should be more complete. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., a code snippet) and lacks context about prerequisites or interactions with other tools. For a tool with 5 parameters, this is insufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides full parameter descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping optional features (popups, tooltips, custom icons) but does not provide additional semantic details beyond what is in the schema.

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 tool's purpose: generating code for adding markers to a Leaflet map, with optional features like popups, tooltips, and custom icons. It uses a specific verb ('generate code') and resource ('adding markers'), and the distinction from sibling tools like add_popup is evident.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or alternative use cases. For example, it does not clarify that this tool is for markers, while add_popup might be for standalone popups.

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

add_popupC

Generate code for creating and customizing Leaflet popups with various options and content.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes	Popup content (HTML supported)
`position`	No	Popup position (if standalone)
`maxWidth`	No	Maximum popup width in pixels
`attachTo`	No	What to attach popup to	marker

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or what the generated code does. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about behavior.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and concise, though it omits important details.

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 tool has 4 parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description is too incomplete. It does not explain what 'Generate code' means, what format the output takes, or how the parameters interact. The tool's context within a code-generation library is only hinted by sibling names.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating 'various options and content', which is already implied by the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies 'Generate code for creating and customizing Leaflet popups', which clearly indicates the tool's purpose and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like add_marker by focusing on popups.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or suggest other tools like add_marker for attaching popups to markers.

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

convert_coordinatesA

Convert between different coordinate formats (decimal degrees, DMS, various notations) and validate coordinates.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes	Input coordinates in any common format
`outputFormat`	No	Desired output format	leaflet

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions validation but doesn't specify behavior on invalid input (e.g., error handling), rate limits, or any side effects. Minimal disclosure beyond core functionality.

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?

Single sentence is concise and includes both conversion and validation aspects. No wasted words, but could be broken into separate sentences for clarity. Suitable for a simple tool.

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?

Given only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and key formats. However, it lacks details on return values, error handling, or coordinate system assumptions, which are useful for a conversion tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds 'validate coordinates' which is not in the schema, providing additional context. However, it doesn't elaborate on input format specifics beyond what schema already implies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool converts between coordinate formats and validates coordinates, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_marker or create_map, which serve different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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. However, sibling tools are clearly different (map creation, markers), so context implies usage for coordinate conversions. Lack of exclusions or prerequisites keeps it at mid-range.

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

create_choroplethB

Generate code for creating an interactive choropleth (data visualization) map with color scales and legends.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dataProperty`	No	Property name to visualize from GeoJSON	density
`colorScheme`	No	Type of color scheme	sequential
`steps`	No	Number of color steps
`includeLegend`	No	Include legend control
`includeInteraction`	No	Include hover effects and info box

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are absent, so description must disclose behavior fully. It states 'generate code' but does not explain output format, side effects, or permissions needed. Minimal behavioral insight beyond purpose.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence that concisely states tool purpose with no redundant information. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, code generation type (e.g., HTML/JavaScript), or any constraints. Incomplete for agent decision-making.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. Description adds no new meaning beyond 'color scales and legends', which is already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly specifies the tool generates code for an interactive choropleth map with color scales and legends, distinguishing it from siblings like create_layer or add_marker.

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 (e.g., search_examples, suggest_plugin). No mention of prerequisites or context.

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

create_geojson_layerA

Generate code for loading and displaying GeoJSON data on a Leaflet map with custom styling and interactions.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dataSource`	No	Source of GeoJSON data
`includeExample`	No	Include example GeoJSON data
`style`	No	Default style for GeoJSON features
`onEachFeature`	No	Include onEachFeature handler example
`filter`	No	Include filter function example

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the tool generates code but does not detail the output format (e.g., string, file), whether it is idempotent, or any side effects. It states 'generate code' which implies a read-only, non-destructive action, but more specificity is needed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. It has no filler words but could be slightly expanded (e.g., indicating the output type) without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the 5 parameters (none required), nested objects, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the overall functionality. However, it lacks information on what the generated code looks like or how the returned data is structured, which would aid agent understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about 'custom styling and interactions' which aligns with parameters like style, onEachFeature, and filter, but it does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'Generate code' and the resource 'loading and displaying GeoJSON data on a Leaflet map with custom styling and interactions'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_choropleth (specific to choropleth) and create_layer (more generic).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for GeoJSON data with styling and interactions but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as add_marker, create_choropleth, or create_layer. No when-not or prerequisite information is provided.

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

create_layerB

Generate code for creating various Leaflet layers: polylines, polygons, circles, rectangles, and other vector layers.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`layerType`	Yes	Type of layer to create
`coordinates`	No	Array of coordinates for the layer
`center`	No	Center coordinate (for circles)
`radius`	No	Radius in meters (for circles)
`style`	No	Layer styling options
`popup`	No	Popup content for the layer

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states 'Generate code' implying a read-like operation, but doesn't disclose whether any state changes occur, permissions needed, or side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for clarity.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too brief. It doesn't explain parameter interdependencies (e.g., center and radius need layerType=circle) or return format. Incomplete for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names and comments. The description adds 'various Leaflet layers' but no extra semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool generates code for creating Leaflet layers, listing specific types (polylines, polygons, circles, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_marker or create_geojson_layer by focusing on vector layers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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. The description implies it's for vector layers, but lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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

create_mapA

Generate complete Leaflet map initialization code with HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. Includes tile layer setup and basic configuration.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`center`	Yes	Map center coordinates
`zoom`	No	Initial zoom level (0-19)
`tileProvider`	No	Tile provider to use	openstreetmap
`containerId`	No	HTML element ID for map container	map
`includeHTML`	No	Include HTML boilerplate

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral details. It mentions includes tile layer setup and configuration, but does not clarify side effects (e.g., if it modifies existing code), output format, or behavior on missing parameters. This lack of detail hinders understanding of the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

A single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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?

For a code generation tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on output format (e.g., returns a string of code) and what 'complete' entails. It covers basic functionality but could be more thorough given the absence of annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'includes tile layer setup'), but does not offer extra semantic context for parameters.

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 it generates Leaflet map initialization code with HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. It specifies the resource (complete map initialization) and the verb (generate), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_marker or create_choropleth that serve different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use for initializing a new Leaflet map, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions or exclusions. Guidance on sequencing with sibling tools (e.g., adding markers after map creation) is absent.

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

debug_common_issuesB

Get help debugging common Leaflet issues like map not displaying, tiles not loading, or marker icons missing.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issue`	Yes	Type of issue you're experiencing
`description`	No	Detailed description of the problem

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose that this is a read-only help tool, nor does it describe the output format or any limitations. The description is too vague about what the agent can expect.

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?

One sentence with examples, no filler. Efficient but could be slightly expanded for clarity without becoming verbose.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., troubleshooting steps, links, code snippets). This lack of information makes the tool less usable for an agent expecting a clear result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by listing example issues that correspond to enum values, but it does not explain the 'description' parameter's format or provide additional guidance beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool provides debugging help for common Leaflet issues, with specific examples. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools (which focus on creation/configuration), though not explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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. Usage is implied by the description, but no exclusions or alternative tool suggestions are provided.

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

search_examplesA

Search through official Leaflet examples and documentation for specific functionality or patterns.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Search query (e.g., 'mobile', 'custom icon', 'geojson')
`includeCode`	No	Include code snippets in results

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits, such as result format, pagination, rate limits, or whether it queries an external API.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks information about return format or result structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Search through' and specific resource 'official Leaflet examples and documentation', differentiating it from sibling tools which are all map-related actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this is the tool for finding examples and documentation, and no sibling tool serves a similar search function. However, it does not specify when not to use it or provide alternative names.

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

suggest_pluginA

Get recommendations for Leaflet plugins based on desired functionality or use case.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`functionality`	No	What functionality are you looking for? (e.g., 'heatmap', 'clustering', 'routing', 'drawing')
`category`	No	Plugin category

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets recommendations' but does not specify whether the operation is read-only, how recommendations are generated, or any constraints (e.g., limited to known plugins). The minimal description does not fully compensate for missing annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete in stating what the tool does. However, it could be improved by briefly indicating the type of response (e.g., 'returns a list of plugin names and descriptions') to set agent expectations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (functionality and category) having clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'based on desired functionality or use case.' Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get recommendations for Leaflet plugins based on desired functionality or use case.' It uses a specific verb ('Get recommendations') and resource ('Leaflet plugins'), and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like add_marker or create_map, which perform actions rather than providing recommendations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage scenarios (when you need plugin recommendations based on functionality or use case) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No exclusion criteria or comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

10 tool updatesv1.0.0Jun 22, 2026
- First observedadd_marker
- First observedadd_popup
- First observedconvert_coordinates
- First observedcreate_choropleth
- First observedcreate_geojson_layer
- First observedcreate_layer
- First observedcreate_map
- First observeddebug_common_issues
- First observedsearch_examples
- First observedsuggest_plugin

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of Leaflet map creation: adding markers, popups, layers, choropleth, GeoJSON, map initialization, coordinate conversion, debugging, and documentation search. No two tools have overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_, convert_, create_, debug_, search_, suggest_), making it easy to predict functionality.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well-scoped for a Leaflet code generation server. It covers core map creation, various layer types, data visualization, coordinate conversion, debugging, and plugin search without being overwhelming.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers common map operations, but missing tools for custom tile layers, map interaction events (click, zoom), and layer removal. However, the core CRUD and lifecycle for map objects are present.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

lightfield
io.github.doc2mcp
MCP server for lightfield documentation, generated by doc2mcp.
Documentation Access Developer Tools
24
doc2mcp
io.github.doc2mcp
MCP server for doc2mcp documentation, generated by doc2mcp.
Documentation Access Developer Tools AI & Machine Learning
22
developer
io.github.doc2mcp
MCP server for developer documentation, generated by doc2mcp.
Documentation Access Developer Tools
24
innovationlab
io.github.doc2mcp
MCP server for innovationlab documentation, generated by doc2mcp.
Documentation Access Developer Tools
24

Related MCP Servers

Google Maps MCP Server
Location Services Travel & Transportation Search
modelcontextprotocol
-
license
Not graded
quality
A
maintenance
MCP Server for the Google Maps API.
Updated 3 days ago (2026-09-03 01:42 UTC)
11,868
90,042
MIT
mapbox-mcp-server
Location Services Travel & Transportation
AidenYangX
A
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
MCP Server for the Mapbox API.
Updated 2 years ago (2024-12-23 13:42 UTC)
5
12
MIT
chuk-mcp-geocoder
Location Services Search
IBM
A
license
A
quality
C
maintenance
An MCP server providing geocoding and place discovery services via Nominatim and OpenStreetMap. It enables users to perform forward and reverse geocoding, extract bounding boxes, and find nearby places or administrative hierarchies.
Updated 22 days ago (2026-08-15 02:40 UTC)
10
Apache 2.0
maps-mcp-server
Location Services Travel & Transportation
jquad-group
F
license
Not graded
quality
A
maintenance
An MCP server providing geocoding, routing, isochrones, and POI-by-proximity search through self-hosted OpenStreetMap backends.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-19 17:10 UTC)
-

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/philgebauer/leaflet-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server

Leaflet MCP Server

Overview

Features

Resources

Tools

1. create_map

2. add_marker

3. create_layer

4. add_popup

5. create_geojson_layer

6. create_choropleth

7. convert_coordinates

8. suggest_plugin

9. search_examples

10. debug_common_issues

Installation

As an MCP Server

Development Mode

Usage Examples

Getting Started

Working with Data

Customization

Finding Solutions

Advanced Features

Architecture

Project Structure

Technical Details

How It Works

API Documentation

Resource URIs

Tool Schemas

Development

Prerequisites

Building from Source

Adding New Tools

Adding New Resources

Common Use Cases

Web Development

Data Visualization

Mobile Development

Education & Learning

Troubleshooting

Server Not Connecting

Build Errors

Tool Not Working

Documentation Not Loading

Resources

Leaflet Documentation

Model Context Protocol

Community

Contributing

License

Acknowledgments

Version History

1.0.0 (Current)

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Looking for Admin?

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API