Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Listing Location Toolkit

by io.github.Nero-Engine
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

People within a drive

who_can_reach
Read-onlyIdempotent

How many people live within each drive time of an address, for example 1, 2 and 4 hours. US: 2020 Census block group populations. UK: WorldPop 2020 1 km grid. Drive times from the OSRM router on OpenStreetMap roads (minutes scaled to match Google Maps usual traffic). Returns the count per band, a ready listing sentence, the method and sources. US and UK only; people across a border (Canada, Mexico, Ireland, France) are not counted.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "who_can_reach"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latNoLatitude in decimal degrees (use with lon instead of address).
lonNoLongitude in decimal degrees.
hoursNoDrive bands in hours. Default [1, 2, 4]. Up to 4 bands, each 0.25 to 5.
addressNoStreet address with town and ZIP or postcode, e.g. "7090 State Highway 80, Cooperstown, NY 13326" or "Ambleside LA22 9BB". Not needed when lat and lon are given.
countryNoOptional hint for the address lookup.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description then adds real behavioral substance the annotations cannot: the population datasets (2020 Census block groups, WorldPop 1 km grid), the routing engine and traffic calibration (OSRM, minutes scaled to Google Maps usual traffic), the return components, and the cross-border exclusion. The only missing piece is failure behavior for out-of-coverage addresses.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core question and then data provenance, with the geographic restriction placed last as a caveat. Dense but each sentence carries information. Minor waste in repeating the default bands already stated in the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (per-band count, listing sentence, method, sources), which compensates well. Since zero parameters are required, it should state that the caller must supply either an address or a lat/lon pair; that mutually exclusive input rule is the one real gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so lat, lon, hours, address and country are all documented in the schema itself, including the [1, 2, 4] default and the 0.25-5 hour bounds. The description mostly echoes that ('for example 1, 2 and 4 hours') without adding format or interaction rules, such as what happens if both address and lat/lon are supplied. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a concrete question the tool answers ('How many people live within each drive time of an address') and specifies the output ('the count per band, a ready listing sentence, the method and sources'). That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling drive_times, leaving the agent to infer that this one adds population counts, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The framing question makes the use case obvious, and the constraints act as when-not guidance: 'US and UK only; people across a border (Canada, Mexico, Ireland, France) are not counted.' What is missing is any named alternative for users outside the US/UK or for callers who want raw drive-time geometry (e.g. drive_times).

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

All Listing Location Toolkit toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources