MapMap

reachable_area

Compute the area reachable from an origin within one or more travel-time budgets — walkability/cyclability rings. Costing "pedestrian" answers "how far can I walk in 15 minutes?", "bicycle" the cycling equivalent; "auto", "truck" and "motor_scooter" work too (e.g. delivery coverage). contours_minutes lists the ring boundaries in minutes (1-10 values, each up to 120); set polygons true for filled polygons ready to render as a map fill layer instead of contour lines. Returns a GeoJSON FeatureCollection, one feature per contour. Optional exclude_polygons for before/after scenarios ("close this bridge and recompute reachability"): an array of polygons, each an array of [lon, lat] pairs forming one ring — longitude FIRST — whose intersecting roads are excluded from the reachability search. Applies to the Valhalla engine; unsupported on the GraphHopper engine, where it is ignored.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`origin`	Yes	Origin the reachable area is computed from.
`costing`	No	Travel mode: "auto" (default), "truck", "bicycle", "pedestrian" or "motor_scooter".	auto
`polygons`	No	Return filled polygons instead of contour linestrings (default false). Polygons draw directly as a MapLibre fill layer.
`contours_minutes`	Yes	Contour boundaries in minutes of travel time, e.g. [5, 10, 15] for 5/10/15-minute rings. 1–10 values, each between 0 and 120 minutes.
`exclude_polygons`	No	Areas to avoid — scenario analysis ("close this bridge and recompute reachability"): an array of polygons, each an array of `[lon, lat]` pairs forming one exterior ring (GeoJSON-style, longitude FIRST). Roads intersecting any ring are excluded from the reachability search. Applies to the Valhalla engine; unsupported on the GraphHopper engine, where it is ignored.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`geojson`	Yes	GeoJSON FeatureCollection of the reachability contours, one feature per requested minute value (each feature's `contour` property is its minutes), as returned by the routing engine.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the GeoJSON FeatureCollection return shape, filled polygons versus contour lines, the 'longitude FIRST' ordering requirement for exclude_polygons, and the Valhalla-only / GraphHopper-ignored engine behavior. It does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects, but the compute-oriented phrasing makes that risk low.

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 text is dense and every clause earns its place: purpose, costings, contours_minutes constraints, polygon rendering, output format, exclude scenarios, and engine support. The core purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and all five parameters documented in the input schema, the description covers the remaining practical knowledge: output feature count, rendering-ready polygons, scenario use, and engine limitations. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly appears missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value above the schema by turning costing modes into practical questions and by highlighting when polygons and exclude_polygons are useful. The engine caveat for exclude_polygons is also conveyed in prose beyond the schema.

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: 'Compute the area reachable from an origin within one or more travel-time budgets', then clarifies the concept as walkability/cyclability rings. This clearly distinguishes the tool from point-based route/matrix siblings by emphasizing areal coverage.

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 description supplies concrete use cases: 'how far can I walk in 15 minutes?', cycling equivalents, delivery coverage, and before/after scenarios using exclude_polygons. It gives clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool versus route or matrix.

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?