Skip to main content
Glama

mapnetwork-mcp

by io.github.toruproject

generate_markers_map

Generate a map with multiple pinned locations. Example: markers=[{"label": "Tokyo Tower", "link": "https://www.tokyotower.co.jp/"}, {"label": "Zojoji Temple"}].

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoOptional: display name for the map. If omitted, the server derives one automatically from place/markers.
placeNoOptional: place to center the map on. If omitted, the center is computed automatically from the markers.
markersYesLocations to pin on the map. At least one required.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / name
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: display name for the map. If omitted, the server derives one automatically from place/markers.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the generation action and gives an example; it does not mention output format, side effects, limitations, or any prerequisite conditions. The example illustrates input structure but adds little beyond the schema.

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 one sentence plus a compact example, front-loading the core purpose. The example is directly relevant and demonstrates the tricky nested array structure, so every part earns its place. No filler.

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?

The tool has a simple schema with full parameter descriptions, and the description covers the primary use case. However, it omits any mention of sibling alternatives or selection criteria, leaving an agent uncertain about when to pick this tool. The absence of an output schema is not an issue because the description states it generates a map.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's example reinforces the markers array shape but adds no new meaning for the name or place parameters. It does not exceed the schema's explanatory value.

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 states a clear action: 'Generate a map with multiple pinned locations' with a specific resource (map with markers). It is a direct verb+resource statement, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools generate_map and generate_route_map. Despite that, the scope is clear enough to identify what the tool produces.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of generate_map or generate_route_map. The phrase 'multiple pinned locations' implies a use case, but no explicit conditions or alternatives are mentioned. An agent would have to infer selection criteria.

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

All mapnetwork-mcp 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: single-place map, multi-marker map, and route map. The descriptions explicitly separate them, and the route tool even warns against double-pinning endpoints with the markers tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the same generate_X_map pattern, making the relationship between tools predictable. The naming clearly indicates the output type and the variation in each tool.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is a tight, well-scoped set for a map generation server. Each tool covers a distinct map use case without redundancy or unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core map-generation workflows: a single location, multiple markers, and a route between two points. Minor advanced options like custom styles or combined routes-plus-markers are not present, but the essential functionality is complete.

Resources