geoagentic

geo-route

Shortest walking, biking, or driving route between two coordinates. Returns distance (metres) and estimated travel time (minutes).

USE FOR:

"Walking directions from A to B"
"How long to bike from X to Y?"
Short local trips (under ~10 km)

NOT FOR: intercity trains/buses → use eu-transit-router instead.

EXAMPLE: User: "Walk from Koper bus station to Izola center" → --lat 45.548 --lon 13.730 --to-lat 45.537 --to-lon 13.660 --profile walk

If you only have place names, call geo-geocode first to get coordinates.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lat`	Yes	Origin latitude.
`lon`	Yes	Origin longitude.
`dist`	No	Graph radius in metres — increase if origin/destination are far apart (max 10 000).
`to_lat`	Yes	Destination latitude.
`to_lon`	Yes	Destination longitude.
`profile`	No	Travel mode: walk, bike, or drive.	walk
`timeout`	No	Hard timeout in seconds (max 60).

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool returns distance in metres and travel time in minutes, and mentions graph radius and timeout. Does not cover failure scenarios or rate limits, but sufficient for a read-only route tool.

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?

Description is well-structured with sections (USE FOR, NOT FOR, EXAMPLE), no unnecessary words, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains return values, gives usage examples, and mentions a prerequisite. It could elaborate on the timeout parameter behavior but is otherwise complete for typical use.

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 context like the dist parameter being graph radius and max distance 10 km, but these are already in the schema. The example is helpful but does not significantly augment schema.

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 it computes the shortest walking, biking, or driving route between two coordinates, naming the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly excluding intercity travel and directing to eu-transit-router.

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?

Provides explicit USE FOR examples and a NOT FOR section with alternative tool (eu-transit-router). Also advises to call geo-geocode when only place names are available.

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

All geoagentic 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

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

Need Help?