Skip to main content
Glama

Osrm

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Route

route
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compute the fastest route between two or more waypoints.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stepsNoInclude turn-by-turn steps (default false)
profileNocar (default) | bike | foot
overviewNosimplified (default) | full | false
annotationsNoduration | nodes | distance | weight | datasources | speed | true | false
coordinatesYesSemicolon-separated lon,lat pairs (e.g. "-122.42,37.77;-122.39,37.78")
alternativesNoReturn alternative routes (default false)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoStatus code (Ok or error)
routesNoArray of routes
waypointsNoArray of waypoint objects

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds only 'fastest route' which is purpose-oriented, not behavioral. No mention of side effects, performance, or limits 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?

Single sentence with front-loaded verb and resource. No redundancy, every word earns its place.

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?

Given the presence of output schema and detailed parameter descriptions, the description captures the essential function. However, lacks context for sibling differentiation and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for effective tool selection.

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 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in schema. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, meeting the baseline for this dimension.

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?

Description clearly states verb (Compute), resource (route), and key constraint (fastest) with waypoints. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'trip' which might be similar.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'trip'. Missing information on prerequisites, suitable scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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