OSM Edit MCP Server

by skywinder

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

list_edit_proposals

Read-onlyIdempotent

List edit proposal metadata, filter by status, and avoid exposing raw GPX coordinates to maintain privacy.

Instructions

List local proposal metadata without exposing raw GPX coordinates.

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": "list_edit_proposals"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`status`	No

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

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint: false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by disclosing that raw GPX coordinates are intentionally excluded and that only metadata is returned, which is not captured by the 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 sentence that puts the verb first, states the resource, and adds the key security constraint without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 that an output schema exists and the annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior, the description provides the essential purpose and privacy constraint needed for safe invocation. The only minor gap is that status values are undocumented, but the parameter is optional with a null default, so the tool remains usable.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the limit or status parameters. The agent receives no additional meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults, leaving the status parameter especially underspecified.

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 opens with 'List', a clear verb, and names the exact resource: 'local proposal metadata'. The qualifier 'without exposing raw GPX coordinates' clarifies the scope and distinguishes this read-only listing from mutation-heavy sibling tools like apply_osm_edit or apply_track_road_edit.

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 phrase 'local proposal metadata' implies the tool is for inspecting proposals before applying edits, which gives some usage context. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like preview_track_road_edit or apply_osm_edit, nor does it mention filtering by status or limits.

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