MapMap

geo_bearing

Initial bearing from one coordinate to another, in degrees clockwise from true north (0-360). This is the bearing at the START of the geodesic; over long distances the bearing changes en route. Local computation: no network call, no quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes	End coordinate.
`from`	Yes	Start coordinate.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bearing_deg`	Yes	Initial bearing from `from` to `to`, degrees clockwise from true north, normalised to 0–360. Note this is the bearing at the start of the geodesic: over long distances the bearing changes en route.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the computation is local (no network call, no quota) and explains a key behavior: the bearing changes en route over long distances. It does not mention error handling, but for a pure calculation the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the important caveat about initial bearing follows immediately. The local computation note is a useful extra. Every sentence earns its place.

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 calculation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it computes, the unit, the geodesic nuance, and the local nature. It doesn't mention potential edge cases (e.g., antimeridian), but that is minor and not expected for such a tool. The provided context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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% — both 'from' and 'to' are described in the schema as start/end coordinates, and the LatLon object defines lat/lon. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating the schema. Given the high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (calculate initial bearing) with a clear resource (one coordinate to another) and defines the output in degrees clockwise from true north. It is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like geo_destination or geo_distance, despite the clarity of the purpose.

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 description implies usage by clarifying that the bearing is at the START of the geodesic, which hints that this is not for constant bearing over long distances. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tools. The guidance is implicit rather than direct.

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

All MapMap tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct action and resource pair, and descriptions are explicit about which tool fits which scenario. The closest overlaps—plan_ev_route vs cheapest_charging_along_route, and route vs plan_day vs order_stops vs optimise_routes—are mitigated by clear guidance, so an agent can usually pick correctly.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (plan_ev_route, set_palette, list_style_layers) with a consistent geo_ prefix for geometry helpers. Minor deviations like elevation, route, and matrix are short and readable but break the strict verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 39 tools, this surface is well past the 25+ threshold and feels heavy even for a broad mapping platform. The set spans routing, geocoding, places, styles, EV/fuel, telematics, usage, and feedback, which would be easier for an agent to navigate if split into smaller domain-focused servers.

Completeness4/5

For the stated breadth, coverage is strong: routing, multi-stop planning, VRP, EV/fuel detours, geocoding, places, geometry, style lifecycle, and telematics all have workable primary paths. Minor gaps like no style deletion, no route alternatives, and no batch geocoding are present but do not create dead ends for core workflows.

Resources

Need Help?