Skip to main content
Glama

Free route and surroundings in the Hamburg region (OSM router + motorway reports)

get_route_context
Read-only

Free. Route between two points in the Hamburg region (lat 52.9-54.2, lon 8.9-10.9): distance, free-flow duration and main streets from the open OSRM router (OpenStreetMap data), and for car routes the Autobahn GmbH jams, closures and roadworks within 1 km of the route. Duration does not include live traffic; city streets are not covered by the reports. Best effort, nothing is estimated.

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": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "get_route_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesEnd as lat,lon or a known place name
fromYesStart as lat,lon (e.g. 53.5511,9.9937) or a known place: airport, center, hauptbahnhof, altona, harburg, bergedorf, finkenwerder, elbphilharmonie, hafen, messe, volksparkstadion, buxtehude, stade, luebeck, elbtunnel
modeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial behavior: it is free, the data sources, that extra Autobahn reports appear only for car routes, that reports are limited to within 1 km of the route, and the 'best effort, nothing is estimated' failure posture. It stops short of stating rate limits or the response shape, keeping it at a 4.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the core capability, then the enrichment, then the caveats. Nearly every clause carries information, though the caveat sentences could be tightened slightly.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the return contents (distance, duration, streets, reports) and their limits. Combined with schema-described from/to parameters, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only the mode default is unstated, which is minor.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the mode enum is undocumented in the schema, and the description compensates by explaining that car routes additionally return jams, closures and roadworks. The from/to semantics (lat,lon or place names) are left to the schema, which already covers them well.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Route between two points in the Hamburg region') plus exactly what is returned: distance, free-flow duration, main streets, and motorway reports. The geographic bounds and data source (OSRM/OpenStreetMap + Autobahn GmbH) make it clearly distinguishable from sibling report tools like get_roads.

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?

Gives clear context for when the tool applies (points within lat 52.9-54.2 / lon 8.9-10.9) and explicit exclusions ('duration does not include live traffic', 'city streets are not covered by the reports'). It never names an alternative sibling for those excluded cases, so routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.