Skip to main content
Glama

Osrm

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Match

match
Read-onlyIdempotent

Map-match a noisy GPS trace (semicolon-separated lon,lat pairs) to the road network via OSRM, optionally specifying per-point search radiuses in meters; returns matched route geometry and confidence.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
profileNo
radiusesNoPer-point search radius in meters, semicolon-separated
coordinatesYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoStatus code (Ok or error)
matchingsNoArray of matched route segments
tracepointsNoArray of matched trace points

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context such as using OSRM, handling noisy traces, and returning geometry and confidence, which enhances transparency beyond annotations.

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, information-dense sentence with key aspects presented upfront. Every part is relevant, and there is no wasted text.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers input format, optional parameters, and output characteristics. It is mostly complete, though a brief mention of the profile parameter would improve it.

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 only 33% (one of three parameters described in schema). The description partially compensates by explaining coordinates format and radiuses, but omits the 'profile' parameter, leaving ambiguity. Thus, it adds some but not sufficient meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it map-matches a noisy GPS trace to a road network using OSRM with specific input format and optional parameters. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'route', which may also involve routing, so it loses a point.

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 the usage scenario (noisy GPS trace matching) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives. Sibling tools like 'route' exist but are not mentioned.

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

All Osrm 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is notable overlap between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, all serving data retrieval. Similarly, the Polymarket betting tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) share a domain, causing potential confusion for an agent.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), camelCase-like (bet_research, compare_entities), and noun-first (entity_profile, recent_changes) are mixed. The lack of a uniform verb_noun or other convention makes it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named 'Osrm,' which suggests a focused routing engine. The actual tool set spans routing, data query, betting, entity resolution, and memory, indicating an overbroad scope that dilutes coherence.

Completeness3/5

The data query and betting tools are relatively comprehensive, but the routing side is minimal (missing isochrones, alternative routes). Gaps exist in general web search and coverage of other prediction markets. The server doesn't fully cover either the implied routing domain or the broader data/betting domain.

Resources