Skip to main content
Glama

Openrouteservice

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Directions

directions
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Directions from A to B" / "how far is [X] from [Y]" / "hiking / cycling / wheelchair / walking route" / "truck routing" / "HGV directions" / "driving route" — turn-by-turn routing between coordinates with profile-specific routing. Profiles: driving-car, driving-hgv (trucks), foot-walking, foot-hiking, cycling-regular / mountain / road / electric, wheelchair. Returns geometry, distance, duration, turn-by-turn instructions, elevation. Uses OpenStreetMap data via OpenRouteService. Use for hiking/biking/wheelchair/truck cases where Mapbox/Google don't have the right profile.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNojson (default) | geojson | gpx
profileNo
coordinatesYes[[lon, lat], …]
instructionsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "coordinates": [
+      [
+        8.681495,
+        49.41461
+      ],
+      [
+        8.687872,
+        49.420318
+      ]
+    ],
+    "instructions": true,
+    "profile": "driving-car"
+  },
+  {
+    "coordinates": [
+      [
+        2.352222,
+        48.856613
+      ],
+      [
+        2.349902,
+        48.853393
+      ]
+    ],
+    "format": "geojson"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Routing response from OpenRouteService",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool uses OpenStreetMap data via OpenRouteService and returns geometry, distance, duration, turn-by-turn instructions, and elevation. This contextual information beyond the annotations is valuable and consistent with them.

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 efficient, covering purpose, use cases, profiles, outputs, and data source in a single block. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly more structured for easier parsing. Every sentence contributes value.

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 the tool's complexity (routing with multiple profiles) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides essential information: input requirements, output types, profiles, and data source. It is complete enough for an agent to select and use the tool appropriately.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, with 'profile' lacking description. The description compensates by listing all profile values (driving-car, driving-hgv, foot-walking, etc.), which adds meaning. For 'instructions' and 'format', the description does not add beyond schema but is adequate. Overall, it reasonably covers the semantic gap.

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 provides turn-by-turn routing with profile-specific routing, listing various query types and outputs. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sister tools like elevation_point and matrix by mentioning special use cases (hiking, wheelchair, truck) where Mapbox/Google lack appropriate profiles.

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 description provides explicit use cases (hiking, cycling, wheelchair, truck routing) and recommends use when Mapbox/Google don't have the right profile. It lists all available profiles. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use or mention alternative tools besides the implicit reference to Mapbox/Google.

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

All Openrouteservice 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set is a chaotic mix of geographic routing, AI visibility, betting analysis, memory storage, and random utilities. Many tools overlap in purpose (e.g., multiple data lookup tools like ask_pipeworx, discover_tools, resolve_entity), and the domain is completely inconsistent, making it nearly impossible for an agent to distinguish which tool to use for a given task.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern; they mix snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), camelCase (generate_llms_txt), and arbitrary verbs without a clear verb_noun structure. Some names are vague (processV2-like patterns are absent, but e.g., 'forget' is a single verb). This chaotic naming prevents an agent from predicting tool functions.

Tool Count1/5

With 27 tools covering routing, AI marketing, betting, memory, and more, the count is extremely mismatched for the server's implied purpose ('Openrouteservice'). Even ignoring the name, the number is high and the scope is far too broad, making the set unwieldy and unfocused.

Completeness1/5

No coherent domain can be inferred from the tool set; it is an arbitrary collection. The routing tools are present but overshadowed by unrelated tools. For any single domain (e.g., betting or routing), the surface is either incomplete or includes extraneous tools, leaving the set severely lacking a clear purpose.

Resources