Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SafeStreets

by io.github.Poseidon-t
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

compare_locations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Score 2 to 10 US locations and say how they differ.

Use this for "which of these is the most walkable", choosing between addresses, or any question that puts places side by side. Give addresses or coordinates, and a label for each if you want the results matched back to your own names.

Returns every location ranked, the best and worst, the spread between them, and the gap on each component. The per-component gap is usually the answer: two places can reach the same composite for opposite reasons, one with errands close by and dangerous streets, the other the reverse.

A location that cannot be resolved is reported in errors and the rest are still scored. Each location counts as one call against your allowance.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "locations": "<locations>"
    },
    "name": "compare_locations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
locationsYesThe places to compare.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses return structure (ranked list, best/worst, spread, component gaps), error behavior for unresolvable locations, and quota impact ('each location counts as one call'). The annotation set already confirms read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds substantial operational context.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and usage, then moves into return behavior and caveats. It is efficient overall, though the explanation of component gaps is slightly verbose and could be tightened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so thoroughly: ranked locations, best/worst, spread, per-component gaps, and error handling. It also covers quota semantics, making the definition complete for calling the tool correctly.

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 parameter documentation is already strong. The description says to give addresses or coordinates and optionally labels for matching, but this largely repeats what the schema already documents rather than adding new syntax or constraints.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Score 2 to 10 US locations and say how they differ.' It clearly implies a multi-location comparison, distinguishing it implicitly from single-location siblings like get_walkability_score, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from score_many or other siblings.

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?

It gives clear usage context: 'Use this for which of these is the most walkable, choosing between addresses, or any question that puts places side by side.' That is strong when-to-use guidance, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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

All SafeStreets 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