Skip to main content
Glama

gisgp

by io.github.uponex

calculate_route

Real driving distance + duration between two points. Default: OSRM (public demo instance, no key — fair-use limited, not a production SLA). Optional agol_token: route through Esri's own World Route Service instead — uses YOUR OWN AGOL credentials/quota, not GISGP's (no extra charge either way, no GISGP account needed for this option). Returns "no_route" honestly when no driving path exists (e.g. across open water). Returns JSON: {ok, routable, distance_km, duration_min, source}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dest_latYes
dest_lonYes
agol_tokenNo
origin_latYes
origin_lonYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / agol_token
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Agol Token",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default backend, fair-use limits, optional token usage, honest 'no_route' response, and the return JSON structure, providing comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 with no redundant sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then introduces options and behavior in a logical order, earning each sentence's place.

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?

The description provides a complete overview: tool purpose, backend options, limitations, honest response, and return format. While it does not mention prerequisites like valid coordinate ranges, the overall coverage is thorough for a routing tool with two backends.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by mentioning coordinates and the agol_token purpose, but it does not explicitly state that origin_lon/origin_lat are the start and dest_lon/dest_lat are the end, nor does it clarify the default value for agol_token. The context signals indicate no enums or nested objects, so the description partially compensates but lacks full clarity on parameter semantics.

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 calculates 'Real driving distance + duration between two points,' distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other geospatial analyses. It also specifies default and optional backends, 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear guidance on when to use the default OSRM backend versus the Esri service with agol_token, including limitations (fair-use, no SLA) and credential requirements. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context is adequate given the sibling list.

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

All gisgp 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many assess_* composite tools (datacenter, ev_charging, renewable, telecom, due_diligence) share the same building blocks of grid proximity, land cover, and terrain, making their boundaries fuzzy. assess_property_hazard_x402 also duplicates assess_property_hazard with only a payment-method difference, and bundle_* tools intentionally overlap with the free primitives they replace.

Naming Consistency3/5

There is a mix of verb_noun tools (query_features, geocode_address), noun-first geometry tools (centroids_geojson, envelope_geojson), and inconsistent _geojson suffix usage (buffer_geojson, fix_geometry, geometry_stats). The assess_* and bundle_* prefixes offer some grouping, but no single naming pattern is followed across the set.

Tool Count1/5

With 85 tools, the surface is extreme for an MCP server and far exceeds the typical well-scoped 3-15 range. Many tools are convenience bundles or variants that could be consolidated, making the count a significant usability burden.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers a broad range of GIS tasks: format conversions, GeoJSON analysis, FeatureServer query/inspection, geocoding, site assessment, and sharing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no Excel-to-GeoJSON, no FeatureServer update/delete), but most missing functionality can be worked around by chaining existing tools.

Resources