OSM Edit MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

find_nearby_amenities

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find nearby amenities by providing coordinates and optional radius. Specify amenity type to locate restaurants, hospitals, or other facilities in OpenStreetMap.

Instructions

Compatibility amenity-only search. radius aliases radius_meters; conflicts fail explicitly. Omitted radii default to 1000m. For museums/parks use search_nearby_places categories instead of inventing amenity tags.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`lat`	Yes
`lon`	Yes
`limit`	No
`radius`	No
`amenity_type`	No	restaurant
`radius_meters`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.2.2Sep 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / limit

Added value: +{
+  "default": 20,
+  "title": "Limit",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / radius

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Radius"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / radius_meters / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

changedInput schema / properties / radius_meters / default
```
Previous value: -1000New value: +null
```
removedInput schema / properties / radius_meters / type
```
Removed value: -"integer"
```

First observedv0.2.1Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses non-obvious runtime behavior: radius and radius_meters are aliases, conflicting values fail explicitly, and omitted radii default to 1000m. This adds real behavioral context that the schema and annotations do not convey. It does not contradict readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

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 three short sentences with no filler. Each sentence earns its place: scope, radius semantics, and sibling-tool routing. The most important non-obvious parameter behavior is front-loaded before the alternative guidance.

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 strong annotations, presence of an output schema, and straightforward core parameters, the description covers the non-obvious invocation details: alias semantics, explicit failure mode, default radius, and when to use the alternative tool. It leaves little an agent needs in order to call the tool correctly, though the exact set of accepted amenity_type values is still implicit.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for the most ambiguous parameters by defining the radius/radius_meters alias relationship, conflict behavior, and default radius. It does not elaborate on lat, lon, limit, or valid amenity_type values, but those are reasonably inferable from the parameter titles and the default value of 'restaurant'.

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 identifies the operation and resource: an 'amenity-only search' for nearby OSM amenities. It also distinguishes itself from its closest sibling, search_nearby_places, by explicitly steering museums/parks to that tool instead. Although 'compatibility' is slightly vague, the core purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives an explicit alternative and the condition that should trigger it: for museums/parks use search_nearby_places categories. It also warns against inventing amenity tags, which helps an agent know when this tool is the wrong choice. This is clear routing guidance, not just a restatement of purpose.

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