list_drivesUnited States coverage across 50 published drives today; strongest in the West and Southwest, with coverage growing in waves. Lists published, shelf-reviewed drives at zero Mapbox cost. For individual-assistant use with attribution. Bulk extraction, redistribution, or commercial dataset use requires a license — contact hello@roamward.app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description adds behavioral traits: US coverage, zero Mapbox cost, licensing requirements for redistribution. This informs the agent about cost and legal constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise but front-loads coverage rather than core purpose. It is structured well but could be more direct.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and simple parameterless tool, the description provides sufficient context: coverage, cost, usage restrictions, and licensing. It covers the key aspects an agent needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no parameter info. Baseline 4 applies per guidelines for 0-param tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists published, shelf-reviewed drives. It distinguishes from siblings like get_drive (single drive) and plan_drive (planning) by specifying 'published' and 'shelf-reviewed'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage context: individual-assistant use with attribution, and restrictions on bulk extraction. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like search_stops.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: retrieving a specific drive, listing drives, planning a route, and searching stops. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., get_drive, list_drives), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for a road trip planning domain. It covers core operations without being excessive, though a few more (like create_drive) could be added.
The server covers key workflows: listing, retrieving, planning, and searching stops. Missing create/update/delete for drives, but the core functionality is solid for typical use.