Skip to main content
Glama

Geoapify

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Routing

routing
Read-onlyIdempotent

Routing / directions: compute the distance and travel time between two points for a given travel mode (drive, walk, bicycle, transit). Returns distance in meters and time in seconds. Example: routing({ from_lat: 48.8584, from_lon: 2.2945, to_lat: 48.8606, to_lon: 2.3376, mode: "drive" })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoTravel mode: 'drive', 'walk', 'bicycle', or 'transit' (default 'drive')
to_latYesLatitude of the destination point
to_lonYesLongitude of the destination point
_apiKeyNoOptional — your own Geoapify API key for higher limits; omit to use the shared Pipeworx key.
from_latYesLatitude of the origin point
from_lonYesLongitude of the origin point

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds that it returns distance and time, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, accuracy, or data source. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence with a clear example, no fluff, and front-loads the purpose. Every part earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description specifies that it returns distance in meters and time in seconds, but does not detail the exact JSON structure of the response. It is adequate for most uses but could be more thorough.

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%, and the description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It includes an example, but that is supplementary. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 distance and travel time between two points for a given travel mode, listing the return values. It is distinct from sibling tools, which include geocode but no other routing function.

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?

Usage is clear because no sibling tool does routing, so the context implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly provide when-not or alternative scenarios, which would elevate it to a 5.

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

All Geoapify toolsInspect
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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, entity_profile, compare_entities, and validate_claim, all retrieving entity data. Agents may struggle to choose correctly between them. Likewise, bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage cover similar prediction market territory.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use underscores, but the verb/noun order varies: compare_entities (verb_noun), entity_profile (noun_noun), scan_competitor_ai_presence (verb_noun), bet_research (noun_verb). Some names are overly long (scan_competitor_ai_presence). The pattern is readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count3/5

With 31 tools, the count is high but not extreme. However, the set covers geospatial, data retrieval, prediction markets, npm scanning, and memory/feedback - too broad for a single server. Many tools feel added without clear justification, making the set feel bloated.

Completeness2/5

The geospatial subset is incomplete (missing elevation, distance matrix, isochrones). The data access tools overlap rather than form a complete API surface (e.g., no entity update/delete). Prediction market tools are numerous but redundant. The server tries to do too much and lacks depth in any area.

Resources