Skip to main content
Glama

replan_routes

Re-plan a fleet part-way through its shift. Send the day back; nothing is stored. MapMap holds NO dispatch state — no plan, no vehicle position, no completion log — so a re-plan is not a delta against something we remember: you pass the ORIGINAL optimise_routes problem in full, plus progress (per vehicle: completed_stop_ids IN THE ORDER SERVED, an optional current_position, and unavailable: true for a breakdown or an end of hours) and/or changes (cancel_job_ids, add_jobs, add_shipments), and get a fresh plan for what is left. That costs bandwidth and buys the absence of a server-side plan that can go stale, leak, or fall out of step with the telematics platform that actually owns the truth — and it makes a re-plan reproducible: the same body always yields the same answer. Completed stops are LOCKED by construction: they are removed from the problem entirely and each vehicle starts from where it actually is, so the solver cannot move a stop that has already happened — a guarantee the solver cannot break, rather than a hint it is free to ignore. At least one progress entry or one change is required. Returns the same plan shape as optimise_routes for the REMAINING work, plus a replan block: the prefix locked per vehicle, where each re-plans from and how that was decided, stops released from a vehicle that can no longer serve them, tasks forced unassigned, and a note for every id that did not resolve. Read that block — a stop that vanished from the plan is named there rather than left for a dispatcher to notice at four in the afternoon; a cancelled id that matched nothing is reported there too rather than refused. Multi-trip vehicles cannot be re-planned: a completion does not say which trip it belongs to, so a problem whose vehicles declare reloads is refused with what to send instead. Billed on the remaining problem, not the original. Requires the MapMap gateway.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jobsNoSingle-stop jobs (at least one job or shipment overall).
truckNoTruck 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.
changesNoChanges to the work itself. Optional, on the same condition.
costingNoCosting model for the travel-time matrix: "auto" (default), "truck", "bicycle", "pedestrian" or "motor_scooter".auto
progressNoPer-vehicle progress. Optional, but at least one progress entry or one change is required — a re-plan that reports nothing new is the original problem.
vehiclesYesThe fleet (at least one vehicle, each with a start and/or end).
emissionsNoThe fleet's emission declaration, for UK clean-air / low-emission zone assessment. On its own it annotates: the response's `zones` block names every zone containing one of the problem's own locations and what this vehicle would pay there. With `avoid_zones` it also steers the internal travel-time matrix away from those zones, so the plan itself changes.
shipmentsNoPickup+delivery pairs.
avoid_zonesNoKeep the optimisation's travel-time matrix out of every zone the declared vehicle would be charged or banned in. Requires `emissions`.
territoriesNoFleet territories: named polygons that bound which vehicle may serve which stop, referenced by `vehicles[].territory_ids`. These are request data — caller-drawn rounds, validated per call and never stored. Nothing to do with clean-air zones or with the offline map packages of the same word.
relax_if_unassignedNoRe-solve ONCE with these relaxations if the first solve leaves work unassigned, and say honestly which plan came back. At most one second solve, never beyond the caps you state, and the relaxed plan is returned only if it assigns MORE work than the first — giving away constraints for nothing is strictly worse than not giving them away. Breaks are never widened, nor are capacities, skills, territories or task caps: only time windows move, and only by the stated amounts. Bills as two solves when the second one runs.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
zonesNoClean-air / low-emission zones touching the problem's own locations, and what the declared vehicle pays in each. Present only when `emissions` was declared.
replanYesWhat the re-plan locked and why: the prefix held per vehicle, where each vehicle re-plans from and how that was decided, stops released from a vehicle that could no longer serve them, tasks forced unassigned, and a note for every id that did not resolve. Read it. A stop that vanished from the plan is named here rather than left for the dispatcher to notice at four in the afternoon.
routesYesOne optimised route per used vehicle.
profileYesThe matrix costing profile the plan was computed with ("auto", "truck", "bicycle", "pedestrian" or "motor_scooter").
reloadsNoThe multi-trip split: each vehicle's trips, their windows, the depot each returns to, and the stated approximation. Present only when a vehicle declared `reloads`. Read the `basis` inside it before quoting arrival times. The trip windows are fixed BEFORE the solve, so a lorry that tips early cannot lend the spare time to its next trip: stops can come back unassigned that a truly sequential model would have served. The plan is feasible, never optimistic — it cannot put a vehicle in two places at once — but it is not optimal. Re-plan after each tip through `replan_routes` for the tighter answer.
summaryYesSolution summary.
relaxationNoThe relaxation report: the caps requested, whether a second solve ran, whether ITS plan is the one returned, what was widened, and what is still unassigned. Present only when `relax_if_unassigned` was declared. Always read `second_solve` and `relaxed_plan_used` before telling anyone the day fits. A plan produced under relaxation has had promises moved, and the block is what says so.
unassignedYesTasks the solver could not assign to any vehicle.
territoriesNoHow the territories bound the plan: which vehicle was eligible for what, and any task no eligible vehicle existed for. Present only when `territories` was declared.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers richly: statelessness ('nothing is stored', 'MapMap holds NO dispatch state'), the need to pass the full original problem, the locked-prefix guarantee by construction, refusal of `reloads` vehicles, billing on the remaining problem, and the contents of the `replan` response block. No annotation contradiction exists since no annotations were provided.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence carries genuine behavioral information, but the description runs roughly 280 words. Passages like 'left for a dispatcher to notice at four in the afternoon' and 'go stale, leak, or fall out of step' are colorfully worded and could be tightened without losing meaning. Dense and valuable, but not concise.

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?

Complete for a complex 11-parameter tool: it covers the required input (full original problem), the qualifying condition, locked-stop behavior, the output shape (`optimise_routes` shape plus `replan` block), refusal cases, billing, and the gateway requirement. The output schema exists, and the description still adds the `replan` block semantics on top.

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, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it names and interrelates the replan-specific parameters (`progress`, `changes`), stresses the strict serving order of `completed_stop_ids`, states the 'at least one of progress or changes' requirement, and explains that vehicles with `reloads` cause a refusal. This goes beyond what the JSON Schema alone communicates.

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 pairing: 'Re-plan a fleet part-way through its shift.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling `optimise_routes` by defining what a re-plan is (original problem plus progress/changes) and what it is not (a delta against stored state).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly frames the trigger condition: part-way through a shift, and 'At least one progress entry or one change is required' — a re-plan reporting nothing new is 'the original problem' (i.e., call `optimise_routes`). It also names a hard exclusion: multi-trip vehicles declaring `reloads` are refused, with direction on what to send instead.

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

Try in Browser

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