Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Opentripmap

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Opentripmap Places Radius

opentripmap_places_radius
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find points of interest (tourist attractions, museums, restaurants, historic sites, etc.) within a radius of a lat/lon point. Returns matching POIs with xid, name, kind categories, distance from the center, and coordinates. Example: opentripmap_places_radius({ lat: 48.8566, lon: 2.3522, radius: 1000, kinds: "museums", limit: 20, _apiKey: "your-key" })

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "lat": 48.8566,
      "lon": 2.3522,
      "radius": 1000,
      "_apiKey": "your-opentripmap-api-key"
    },
    "name": "opentripmap_places_radius"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latYesLatitude of the search center, e.g. 48.8566
lonYesLongitude of the search center, e.g. 2.3522
langNoTwo-letter language code for names (default "en")
rateNoOptional minimum importance rating: "1","2","3","1h","2h","3h" (h = has Wikidata/heritage). Filters to more notable places.
kindsNoOptional comma-separated category filter, e.g. "museums", "historic,architecture", "foods". See OpenTripMap "kinds" taxonomy.
limitNoMax number of POIs to return (default 50)
radiusYesSearch radius in meters, e.g. 1000
_apiKeyYesOpenTripMap API key (free at https://dev.opentripmap.org/register)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return fields (xid, name, kind categories, distance, coordinates) and providing an example call. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying what the agent can expect in the response, without contradicting the declared safety profile.

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 concise: two sentences plus a practical example. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, the return details follow, and the example demonstrates usage without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a read-only search tool, the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, return fields (compensating for the absence of an output schema), and provides an example. The schema documents all parameters, and annotations cover safety. Minor gaps include not mentioning sorting or pagination, but these are not critical for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

All 8 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's example illustrates parameter usage (e.g., kinds: 'museums', limit: 20) but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The return field list is not parameter semantics. The description adds minimal value on top of the schema.

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 function: finding points of interest within a radius of a lat/lon point. It specifies the verb (Find), the resource (POIs), and the context (radius search), and even lists example categories. It differentiates from sibling opentripmap tools (autosuggest, geoname, place_detail) by focusing on radius-based search, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use this tool (for radius-based POI search) but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions for choosing them. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives, leaving usage inference to the agent. The purpose is clear enough to infer, but the description does not provide the explicit routing that would merit a higher score.

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

All Opentripmap toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources