Skip to main content
Glama

geoagentic

by app.geoagentic

geo-isochrone

Calculate how far you can travel in N minutes from a point. Returns reachable node count, approximate radius, and a bounding box.

USE FOR:

  • "How far can I walk from here in 15 minutes?"

  • "What's reachable by bike in 10 minutes from Koper center?"

NOT FOR: directions between two specific points → use geo-route instead.

EXAMPLE: User: "Walking isochrone from Koper center, 15 minutes" → --lat 45.548 --lon 13.730 --minutes 15 --profile walk

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latYesOrigin latitude.
lonYesOrigin longitude.
distNoRoad network radius to load in metres (max 10 000). Increase for longer travel times.
minutesNoTravel time budget in minutes.
profileNoTravel mode: walk, bike, or drive.walk
timeoutNoHard timeout in seconds (max 60).

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or failure behavior. The only behavioral hint is in the schema (max distance) but not highlighted in the description. The description fails to provide adequate transparency.

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 description is succinct and well-structured with clear sections ('USE FOR', 'NOT FOR', 'EXAMPLE'). Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description explains the purpose and output types but lacks details on output format, precision, or behavior with edge cases (e.g., very short/long times). Given the absence of an output schema, more specificity would be beneficial. However, it covers the essential use case adequately.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it provides an example with values but does not explain parameter constraints or defaults beyond what's already in the schema. No additional semantics are conveyed.

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 clearly states the tool calculates travel reach within N minutes from a point, listing outputs (node count, radius, bounding box). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'geo-route' by stating it is not for directions, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description includes a 'USE FOR' section with example queries and a 'NOT FOR' section that points to an alternative tool (geo-route), providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

All geoagentic toolsInspect
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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (geocoding vs routing vs POI search). However, the multiple Slovenian cadastral tools (simple, deep, wfs-expert) overlap in functionality, potentially confusing an agent on which to use for a given task.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tools within subgroups like 'geo-*' follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, and 'slovenia-*' tools use a noun_adjective pattern. However, across the whole set there is no unified naming convention, mixing prefixes like 'eu-', 'events-', 'hikes-', and 'hostel-'.

Tool Count4/5

With 16 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal range (3-15) but still well-scoped. Each tool addresses a distinct geographic need, although the breadth across many domains (transit, cadastre, weather, hostels) feels a bit broad.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core geographic operations (geocoding, routing, POI, isochrones, reverse geocoding) plus specialized Slovenian data and travel amenities. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of general worldwide POI beyond OSM or event discovery beyond Luma, but overall it is comprehensive for its domain.

Resources