Skip to main content
Glama

Openrouteservice

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Send Pipeworx Feedback

pipeworx_feedback

Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client (another vendor's Gmail, Splunk, Slack, etc. connector), we cannot fix it and reporting it here only delays you; file it with that server instead. Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists. Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed and what changed. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNobug = something broke or returned wrong data. feature = a new tool or capability you wish existed. data_gap = data Pipeworx does not currently expose. praise = positive note. other = anything else.
contextNoOptional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to.
messageNoYour feedback in plain text. Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max.
claim_tokenNoRead the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / claim_token
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Read the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "type",
-  "message"
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only signal non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds significant behavioral context: it can act as a submitter or a status-checker depending on claim_token, it returns a claim_token when filed without an account, it is rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, it is free, and it doesn't count against tool-call quota. It also warns against pasting end-user prompts, which is a valuable behavioral guideline.

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?

Though longer than a two-sentence description, the content is dense and each sentence serves a distinct purpose: purpose, usage triggers, scope exclusions, content guidance, claim token workflow, rate limit, and cost. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and structured logically with no redundant filler.

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, but the description covers both operational modes (submit and check status), explains the return value (claim_token) and what subsequent calls return (status and changes), and adds constraints like rate limit and quota-free usage. This is a complete picture for a tool with this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds practical usage nuances beyond the schema, especially for claim_token (how to pass it back to read status/resolution) and for message (describe in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, don't paste end-user prompt). This elevates it above the baseline, though the schema still carries most parameter documentation.

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's action (tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist) and specifies the resource (Pipeworx tools served by this connection). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly excluding tools from other MCP servers and referencing the catalog of this connection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use scenarios (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and a direct when-not-to-use exclusion (tools from other MCP servers, with the alternative to file with that server). It also tells users how to disambiguate (Pipeworx tool names are those this connection lists).

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