Close API

isochrone

The area reachable from a location within a time budget, as GeoJSON contours (metered: 10 tokens per contour). Give block_geoid or lat+lon. Defaults to a single 30-minute contour; ask for more only when needed (bodies can be large).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lat`	No
`lon`	No
`mode`	No	walk, bike, or transit.	walk
`minutes`	No	A single threshold (1-60).
`contours`	No	Up to four ascending thresholds, instead of minutes.
`direction`	No	'from' the origin (default) or 'to' it.
`block_geoid`	No

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by mentioning metering (10 tokens per contour) and response size warning, but lacks details on error handling, direction defaults, or required parameters.

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 two concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded, no wasted words.

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 covers key usage aspects: location, default contour, metering, and size. It could mention direction default or that mode defaults to walk.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description clarifies location input options (block_geoid vs lat+lon) and advises on contour defaults, adding meaning beyond the schema's 57% coverage. However, it does not enumerate direction values or exact formats.

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 computes the area reachable within a time budget as GeoJSON contours. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like blocks_in_area or nearby_pois.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description recommends giving block_geoid or lat+lon and warns against asking for many contours, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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

All Close API 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: blocks_in_area provides per-block travel times, isochrone gives reachable areas, nearby_pois gives times to specific POIs, walkability_summary gives times to destination categories, and the rest handle place lookup, catalog, tokens, and authentication. No two tools overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix styles: some start with verbs (find_place, get_catalog, redeem_code, request_sign_in), others are noun phrases (blocks_in_area, isochrone, nearby_pois, walkability_summary). There is no consistent verb_noun or noun pattern, making it harder for an agent to predict tool names.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools, the server covers core travel time analysis, place lookup, authentication, and membership. The count is well-scoped for the domain—neither too few to be useful nor too many to be confusing.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the major workflows: finding places, getting base data, computing travel times in various forms (blocks, isochrones, POIs, summaries), and managing API keys. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for single-point travel time to arbitrary coordinates), but the set is largely complete for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?