Skip to main content
Glama

MapMap

by ai.mapmap
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
originYesOrigin the reachable area is computed from.
costingNoTravel mode: "auto" (default), "truck", "bicycle", "pedestrian" or "motor_scooter".auto
polygonsNoReturn filled polygons instead of contour linestrings (default false). Polygons draw directly as a MapLibre fill layer.
contours_minutesYesContour 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_polygonsNoAreas 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
geojsonYesGeoJSON 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / $defs / LatLon / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "lat": {
+        "description": "Latitude in decimal degrees (−90 to 90).",
+        "format": "double",
+        "type": "number"
+      },
+      "lon": {
+        "description": "Longitude in decimal degrees (−180 to 180).",
+        "format": "double",
+        "type": "number"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "lat",
+      "lon"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "description": "GeoJSON position [lon, lat]: longitude FIRST.",
+    "items": {
+      "format": "double",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "maxItems": 2,
+    "minItems": 2,
+    "type": "array"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / $defs / LatLon / description
      Previous value: -"A WGS84 coordinate pair in decimal degrees."New value: +"A WGS84 coordinate in decimal degrees: a {lat, lon} object (preferred), or a GeoJSON [lon, lat] array with LONGITUDE FIRST, the same order as every polygon field on this server."
    • removedInput schema / $defs / LatLon / properties
      Removed value: -{
-  "lat": {
-    "description": "Latitude in decimal degrees (−90 to 90).",
-    "format": "double",
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  "lon": {
-    "description": "Longitude in decimal degrees (−180 to 180).",
-    "format": "double",
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-}
    • removedInput schema / $defs / LatLon / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "lat",
-  "lon"
-]
    • removedInput schema / $defs / LatLon / type
      Removed value: -"object"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the return format (GeoJSON FeatureCollection, one feature per contour), the line-vs-polygon output switch, longitude-first coordinate ordering, and the critical engine caveat that exclude_polygons is silently ignored on GraphHopper. It stops short of discussing error conditions or performance, but these are minor for a read-only compute tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then flows logically through costing, contours, polygons, exclusion, and engine caveat. Every sentence earns its place for a 5-parameter tool, though the exclude_polygons section is somewhat dense and partially mirrors schema text.

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?

Given an output schema exists, 100% parameter coverage, and the tool's read-only nature, the description covers purpose, parameter intent, return format, and cross-engine behavior. The main gap is the absence of an explicit safety/read-only statement, which matters more because no annotations were provided.

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%, setting baseline at 3, and the description adds real value above it: it maps each costing enum value to an intent, explains polygons as a map-rendering convenience, and gives the exclude_polygons scenario meaning beyond the schema's literal definition.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Compute the area reachable from an origin within one or more travel-time budgets' and immediately grounds it with 'walkability/cyclability rings'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like route, matrix, nearby_places, and geo_area — no other sibling computes isochrones.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: translates costing modes into user questions ('how far can I walk in 15 minutes?'), names delivery coverage as an auto/truck use case, and frames exclude_polygons as a before/after scenario ('close this bridge and recompute reachability'). However, it never explicitly names sibling tools or states when to prefer route/matrix instead.

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

All MapMap toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources