MapMap

optimise_routes

Optimise multi-vehicle, multi-stop delivery plans (VRP). Provide vehicles (id, start/end, capacity, skills, time_window), jobs (id, location, service_s, delivery/pickup, skills, time_windows) and/or shipments (pickup+delivery pairs that ride the same vehicle). Costing "auto", "truck", "bicycle", "pedestrian" or "motor_scooter" (cargo-bike and courier fleets welcome): with a truck profile (dimensions + ADR declaration, as in route), the travel-time matrix respects dimensional and dangerous-goods restrictions, so every optimised route is truck-legal. Returns a summary, unassigned tasks and per-vehicle routes with ordered steps (arrival_s/duration_s in seconds, distance_m in metres). Fair use: at most 200 unique locations per problem, and no wider than the routing engine's 400 km matrix span.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobs`	No	Single-stop jobs (at least one job or shipment overall).
`truck`	No	Truck profile (dimensions + ADR declaration). Requires costing "truck"; the travel-time matrix then respects dimensional and dangerous-goods restrictions, so the whole plan is truck-legal.
`costing`	No	Costing model for the travel-time matrix: "auto" (default), "truck", "bicycle", "pedestrian" or "motor_scooter".	auto
`vehicles`	Yes	The fleet (at least one vehicle, each with a start and/or end).
`shipments`	No	Pickup+delivery pairs.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`routes`	Yes	One optimised route per used vehicle.
`profile`	Yes	The matrix costing profile the plan was computed with ("auto", "truck", "bicycle", "pedestrian" or "motor_scooter").
`summary`	Yes	Solution summary.
`unassigned`	Yes	Tasks the solver could not assign to any vehicle.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses the returned components (summary, unassigned tasks, per-vehicle routes), units (seconds, metres), and the truck-legality guarantee when a truck profile is used. It does not cover failure modes or edge-case validation, but it is well above minimal.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense but well structured: purpose first, then input categories, costing semantics, output shape, and fair-use limits. The parenthetical 'cargo-bike and courier fleets welcome' is mildly promotional but not harmful; overall, each sentence contributes useful 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?

The description covers the essential invocation context: input categories, vehicle/job/shipment relationships, truck-profile behavior, output summary, and hard usage limits. An output schema exists for return values, so the description need not enumerate response fields; the only minor gap is lack of explicit minimum-job guidance, but that is already in the schema.

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 the schema already documents every parameter in detail. The description adds useful high-level context about vehicles, jobs, shipments, and costing, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Optimise multi-vehicle, multi-stop delivery plans (VRP)'. It clearly distinguishes this from single-route or single-vehicle sibling tools by emphasizing multi-vehicle, multi-stop VRP semantics and by explaining what truck-legal routes mean.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is clearly conveyed: multi-vehicle, multi-stop delivery optimisation, with concrete input categories (vehicles, jobs, shipments) and costing modes. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like route or order_stops, but the context is strong enough to route an agent effectively.

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?