MapMap

submit_integration_retro

Send MapMap a structured integration retro (problems, gotchas, wins, docs gaps). Call at most once, after your MapMap integration works or you stop trying, and only if the developer has approved sending feedback to MapMap. Sends ONLY the structured fields in this schema to MapMap — never your conversation or code. Provide what_built (required), problems [{area: sdk|api|mcp|docs|billing|self-host|other, description, workaround_found}], gotchas, wins, docs_gaps, and optionally agent_name and sdk_version.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wins`	No	What went well (at most 20 entries × 500 bytes).
`gotchas`	No	Surprises/traps worth documenting (at most 20 entries × 500 bytes).
`problems`	No	Problems hit during the integration (at most 20).
`docs_gaps`	No	Documentation gaps hit (at most 20 entries × 500 bytes).
`agent_name`	No	The submitting agent's name, e.g. "Claude Code" (at most 100 bytes).
`what_built`	Yes	What was built with MapMap, in one or two sentences (required, at most 500 bytes).
`sdk_version`	No	MapMap SDK version integrated against, when known (at most 50 bytes).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes	`received` when the gateway stored it; `queued` when it was appended to the local review queue.
`message`	Yes	A short, honest sentence for the agent saying where the retro landed — sent to MapMap, or held in this server's local queue.
`delivery`	Yes	How it was delivered: `gateway` or `local-queue`.
`retro_id`	Yes	Id of the stored retro (gateway id, or the local queue id).

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 full behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool only sends structured schema fields, never conversation or code, and that it should be called at most once. This covers the key side effects and privacy boundary a caller needs to know.

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?

Three dense sentences: purpose, invocation constraints, and field summary. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

The description is complete for this tool: it specifies when to call, what conditions must be met, what is sent, what is not sent, and which fields are required or optional. The output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 a useful summary of required vs. optional fields, but does not materially expand on the schema's own description of each parameter. 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 and resource: 'Send MapMap a structured integration retro'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the geo/mapping siblings by naming the unique feedback purpose.

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?

Description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call at most once, after your MapMap integration works or you stop trying, and only if the developer has approved sending feedback to MapMap.' This is precise and leaves no ambiguity about invocation conditions.

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?