OSM Edit MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_osm_statistics

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve statistics and analytics for OpenStreetMap data within a bounding box to evaluate map features and data completeness.

Instructions

Get statistics and analytics for OSM data in a bounding box.

Args: bbox: Bounding box as "min_lon,min_lat,max_lon,max_lat"

Returns: Dictionary containing comprehensive statistics

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": {
      "bbox": "<bbox>"
    },
    "name": "get_osm_statistics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bbox`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the return value is a dictionary containing statistics, which is useful but not deeply detailed; the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no extraneous information.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description provides the necessary bbox format and indicates the return type. The output schema and annotations cover remaining details, though the description could mention what kinds of statistics are included to make the tool more self-explanatory.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema only defines bbox as a string with no format guidance. The description fully compensates by specifying the exact bounding box format as min_lon,min_lat,max_lon,max_lat, which is the key information needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 clearly states the tool gets statistics and analytics for OSM data in a bounding box, combining a specific verb with a concrete resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_osm_node or get_osm_way, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as get_osm_elements_in_area or smart_geocode, nor does it state what types of requests should or should not be routed here.

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