Calculates route toll estimates through Google Routes when origin and destination coordinates or addresses plus GOOGLE_MAPS_API_KEY are configured. State-only distance inputs are not treated as authoritative prices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| origin | Yes | Origin as {lat,lng} or an address string | |
| destination | Yes | Destination as {lat,lng} or an address string | |
| vehicle_type | No | Optional vehicle category |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must bear the load. It discloses the dependency on GOOGLE_MAPS_API_KEY and warns about state-only inputs not being authoritative. However, it does not describe if the operation is read-only, cost implications, rate limits, or error behavior, leaving significant gaps.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a critical caveat. No unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.
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, the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns (e.g., toll cost amount, currency, route segments). It lacks this information and does not mention error conditions. The input side is well-covered, but the output is opaque.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that the API key must be configured and that state-only distance inputs are not authoritative, but does not elaborate on parameter formats or semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 calculates route toll estimates via Google Routes, specifying the required inputs (coordinates/addresses plus API key). It distinguishes from siblings like getRouteDuration by focusing on tolls. The caveat about state-only inputs adds clarity.
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 implies usage for toll estimation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getRouteDuration. The note about state-only inputs provides some guidance, but no exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is given.
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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality, e.g., auditNetworkHost combines DNS, SSL, and header checks that have dedicated tools (auditDnsSecurity, checkSslExpiry, auditSecurityHeaders). Multiple weather and blockchain tools also overlap in scope, making it difficult for an agent to choose the right tool.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., getAirQuality, checkDnsPropagation), but a few deviate (agentPreflight, capabilitiesDiff) and some use compound names (depositCoordinationBounty). Overall, the pattern is clear but not perfectly uniform.
With 56 tools, the server is far too large for a coherent MCP surface. The number suggests a collection of many unrelated APIs rather than a focused tool set. A typical well-scoped server has 3-15 tools.
While the tool set covers many domains, each domain has shallow coverage. For example, blockchain tools miss basic transaction sending and contract deployment; weather tools lack forecasts. The 'requestMissingData' endpoint acknowledges gaps, but the current surface is severely incomplete for a general-purpose API.