Skip to main content
Glama

MapMap

by ai.mapmap
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

report_map_issue

Report that the live world disagrees with the map — a closed road, a wrong or missing restriction, a bad speed limit, a missing road, a wrong one-way, or changed access. Use it when you observe the mismatch mid-task. Provide location {lat, lon}, a category (road_closed, wrong_restriction, wrong_speed_limit, missing_road, wrong_oneway, access_changed, other) and optionally a description, the OSM way_id and an evidence_url. This is a first-party observation: it is QUEUED for human/agent review and NEVER changes routing immediately or edits any map. Returns the queued report_id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
way_idNoThe OSM way id the observation concerns, when the caller knows it. Optional — the report stands on its own as a first-party observation and is never tied to OSM data beyond this hint.
categoryYesWhat kind of mismatch this is.
locationYesWhere the mismatch was observed (WGS84 decimal degrees).
descriptionNoFree-text detail of what was observed on the ground, e.g. "barrier across the lane, diversion signed via the B4009". Bounded length.
evidence_urlNoA URL backing the observation (photo, notice, news item), when one exists. Bounded length.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYesAlways "queued": the report awaits human/agent review and changes nothing about routing immediately.
categoryYesThe category, echoed back as its snake_case wire tag.
report_idYesThe generated id of the queued report (cite it in follow-ups).

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
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses that the action is queued for human/agent review, NEVER changes routing immediately, and NEVER edits any map. It also states it returns the queued report_id. This fully informs the agent of the asynchronous, non-mutating nature of the call, which is critical for a reporting 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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose, then gives usage instructions, then behavioral caveats. It is a bit longer than strictly necessary but every sentence contributes (categories, parameters, non-mutating guarantee, return value). It is well-structured and not redundant with the schema.

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 tool has 5 parameters (2 required) and a non-trivial LatLon type, but the schema fully documents them. The description adds the essential behavioral context (queued, non-mutating) and the return value. It does not describe error cases or the exact shape of the response beyond report_id, but that is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gap: it does not mention that the array form of location uses longitude-first, but the schema does.

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 coverage is 100% – every parameter and enum has a description, so the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description merely restates the required fields and lists the category enum values, adding no new meaning. It even says 'Provide `location` {lat, lon}' while the schema also allows a GeoJSON [lon, lat] array, which could slightly mislead, but the schema clarifies it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: 'Report that the live world disagrees with the map' and enumerates concrete mismatch types (closed road, wrong restriction, etc.). It is immediately distinct from all sibling tools, which are routing/geo utilities, and no other tool on the list performs reporting. The purpose is unambiguous and scoped.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it: 'Use it when you observe the mismatch mid-task.' It does not name alternatives because none exist among siblings, but it does clarify the tool is for first-party observations and that reports are queued, implying it is not for immediate routing changes. The context is clear, though it lacks an explicit 'do not use when…' clause.

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