OSM Edit MCP Server

by skywinder

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

get_osm_relation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve OpenStreetMap relation details by ID, including members and tags, to inspect or edit relation data.

Instructions

Get an OSM relation by ID.

Args: relation_id: The ID of the relation to retrieve

Returns: Dictionary containing relation data including members and tags

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "relation_id": "<relation_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_osm_relation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`relation_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by stating the return shape: a dictionary with relation data including members and tags. It does not discuss not-found behavior, but for a simple lookup with an output schema present this is acceptable.

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 docstring is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then offers an Args/Returns structure. Every sentence is informative and there is no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-parameter read-only lookup, the definition is complete: the resource, retrieval key, and return shape are present, annotations cover safety/idempotence, and an output schema exists to define the exact return fields.

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?

With 0% schema-description coverage, the description needed to compensate, but it only restates the schema's 'Relation Id' title: 'relation_id: The ID of the relation to retrieve'. This is enough for a single obvious integer parameter but adds no deeper detail about valid ID ranges, formats, or the meaning of members/tags.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('OSM relation'), and the retrieval key ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling operations like get_osm_node, get_osm_way, and spatial queries.

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 use case is obvious: use whenever you need a relation by its numeric ID. The description does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the simple fetch-by-ID context makes the when-to-use clear enough without more.

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