OSM Edit MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

analyze_gpx_track

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect a GPX file to identify and list its independently selectable track segments, making it easier to choose the right segment for map editing.

Instructions

Inspect a GPX file and list its independently selectable track segments.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "analyze_gpx_track"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`gpx_xml`	No
`gpx_path`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description's 'Inspect/list' wording is consistent with those. It adds the detail that segments are 'independently selectable', giving useful context about the output's role, but it discloses no additional behavioral constraints beyond what annotations already cover.

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, front-loaded with the verb, and no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it easy to scan and remember.

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 two optional parameters and no input guidance, an agent cannot reliably know how to pass the GPX data. The output schema may describe return values, but the description lacks the minimal usage context needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the gpx_xml and gpx_path parameters or how to choose between them. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema field 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?

The description specifies the verb 'Inspect' and the resource 'GPX file', with a precise outcome: list independently selectable track segments. This clearly differentiates it from sibling track selection/editing tools like create_track_selection or apply_track_road_edit, which operate on selections rather than analyze files.

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 create_track_selection or other track-related siblings. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer its role in the workflow.

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