Skip to main content
Glama

Osrm

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Table

table
Read-onlyIdempotent

Distance / duration matrix between source and destination points.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
profileNocar | bike | foot (default car)
sourcesNoIndices into coordinates that are origins (default all)
annotationsNoduration (default) | distance | duration,distance
coordinatesYesSemicolon-separated lon,lat pairs
destinationsNoIndices into coordinates that are destinations (default all)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoStatus code (Ok or error)
sourcesNoArray of source waypoint objects
distancesNoMatrix of distances in meters (if requested)
durationsNoMatrix of durations in seconds
destinationsNoArray of destination waypoint objects

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, output format). With strong annotations, the description's minimal contribution is acceptable.

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, precise sentence that directly conveys the tool's core function with no extraneous words.

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 complexity of a matrix computation tool (5 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but could benefit from a brief note on output structure (e.g., 'returns a 2D array'). However, the schema covers parameter details, so the description is mostly complete.

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 coverage is 100%; all parameters are described in the input schema. The description does not add new parameter information, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 'Distance / duration matrix between source and destination points' clearly identifies the tool as computing a matrix of distances or durations, which is distinct from sibling tools like 'route' (single route) or 'trip' (trip planning).

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 bulk distance/duration computation but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'route' or 'trip'. The presence of sibling tools provides context, but the description itself lacks usage differentiation.

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