daedal-map

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Resolve Map Viewport

resolve_bbox

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare a rectangular WGS84 viewport, given by four corners, against the global administrative spine through Admin 2; return best equal-area overlaps, nearby matches, and share metrics.

Instructions

Compare one non-wrapping rectangular WGS84 viewport with the published Global administrative spine through Admin 2. Supply its four corners. Returns the best equal-area overlap plus nearby matches at each level and their shares of the viewport and loc_id. Large views may require zooming in. This tool reads no country deep bank.

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": {
      "corners": "<corners>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_bbox"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`corners`	Yes	Four distinct corners of one axis-aligned rectangle; no antimeridian crossing.
`request_id`	No	Optional caller-supplied tracing ID.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`bbox`	No
`error`	No
`reason`	No
`ranking`	No
`batch_id`	No
`guidance`	No
`warnings`	No
`next_step`	No
`best_match`	No
`request_id`	No
`query_layout`	No
`admin_1_scope`	No
`clarification`	No
`meter_receipt`	No
`shallow_loc_id`	No
`geometry_release`	No
`settlement_receipt`	No
`matches_by_admin_level`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.3Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral constraints beyond that: the Admin 2 depth ceiling, the no-antimeridian-crossing restriction, and the scale warning about large viewports. It still leaves the failure mode for oversized views ambiguous and partly restates return content the output schema already carries.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The comparison is front-loaded and there is no obvious filler, but five short sentences of dense internal shorthand ('administrative spine', 'loc_id', 'country deep bank') make it slower to parse than its length suggests. Some phrasing earns its place; the return-value sentence duplicates output-schema content.

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?

With a full output schema and complete annotations, the description only needs to cover constraints and depth, which it does: Admin 2 ceiling, non-wrapping rectangle, and a scale caveat. What is missing is the consequence of an oversized viewport and whether partial/empty matches are returned as normal results.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so 'corners' (four distinct axis-aligned corners, no antimeridian crossing) and 'request_id' are already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'Supply its four corners' adds nothing beyond it and never mentions request_id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('one non-wrapping rectangular WGS84 viewport') against a defined target ('administrative spine through Admin 2'), so an agent knows this resolves a bbox to admin geographies. The closing line 'reads no country deep bank' obliquely separates it from the deep siblings (resolve_deep_bbox/resolve_deep_point), but the jargon ('spine', 'loc_id') blunts the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Supply its four corners' plus 'This tool reads no country deep bank' hints that deep-drill work belongs to the deep variants. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not comparison against resolve_point or resolve_deep_bbox, and 'Large views may require zooming in' is an unresolved caveat (error? truncation? partial results?) rather than guidance.

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

Deploy Server