mapsmith 0.3.0__tar.gz → 0.5.0__tar.gz

{mapsmith-0.3.0 → mapsmith-0.5.0}/.gitignore

@@ -61,3 +61,8 @@ uv.lock
 
 # The site is generated: `python site/build.py dist` rebuilds it from a real run.
 site/generated/
+
+# Written by `benchmarks/dashboard.py` and by MAPSMITH_DISCOVERY_LOG:
+# both hold the queries somebody typed, so they stay out of the repository.
+dashboard.html
+*.jsonl

mapsmith-0.5.0/.zenodo.json

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+{
+  "upload_type": "software",
+  "title": "MapSmith: geospatial processing over MCP, with verifiable provenance",
+  "version": "0.5.0",
+  "creators": [
+    {"name": "The MapSmith project"}
+  ],
+  "license": "agpl-3.0-or-later",
+  "access_right": "open",
+  "keywords": [
+    "GIS",
+    "geospatial",
+    "provenance",
+    "reproducibility",
+    "Model Context Protocol",
+    "MCP"
+  ],
+  "description": "<p>An MCP server for professional geoprocessing under a rule the caller cannot bend: every geometry and every number comes from a real engine run, never from the model.</p><p>Each operation that writes a dataset also writes a manifest beside it &mdash; the inputs and their hashes, the exact parameters, the coordinate-system decisions and the reason for each, the engine and its version, the environment that changed the answer, and the deterministic checks that ran. The manifest is written <em>before</em> a failed check raises, so the audit trail survives the error rather than disappearing with it.</p><p>Capabilities are reached through a searchable catalogue rather than a wall of tools, because a caller's ability to pick the right tool degrades long before a catalogue does. The catalogue answers with a set of candidates and the text that distinguishes them, not with a verdict.</p><p>A manifest records what was done; it does <em>not</em> certify that what was done was right. MapSmith says so in its own documentation, and a separate correctness suite exists to measure the difference.</p>"
+}