Skip to main content
Glama

Openrouteservice

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Geocode Search

geocode_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Geocode [address]" / "find [city] coordinates" / "search for places named [X]" / "where is [landmark]" — geocode an address or place name to coordinates via Pelias (OpenStreetMap-backed). Returns ranked candidates with lat/lng, address components, layer (venue/street/locality/region). Use as a free alternative to Mapbox/Google geocoding, or when you want OpenStreetMap-curated data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sizeNo
textYes
layersNo
sourcesNo
focus_latNo
focus_lonNo

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: +[
+  {
+    "text": "Berlin"
+  },
+  {
+    "focus_lat": 49.41461,
+    "focus_lon": 8.681495,
+    "size": 10,
+    "text": "restaurant"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Geocoding search response from OpenRouteService (Pelias)",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, read-only, not destructive. Description adds that it uses Pelias, returns ranked candidates with lat/lng, address components, and layer. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences plus a list of example queries. It is relatively concise and front-loaded with purpose, though the list of examples could be shortened without loss.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Output schema exists, so return values are documented. However, with 6 parameters and no param descriptions, the description does not fully compensate. It covers the core behavior but leaves details on optional parameters unclear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description only implies 'text' and 'size' via examples, but does not explain 'layers', 'sources', 'focus_lat', 'focus_lon'. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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 it geocodes an address or place name to coordinates, gives example query patterns, and explicitly contrasts with Mapbox/Google as a free OSM alternative. This distinguishes its purpose well among 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?

The description advises use as a free alternative to Mapbox/Google or when OSM data is desired. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative sibling tools, but the context is clear and actionable.

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