Hiking MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_routes

Search for hiking routes on Wikiloc by location and keywords. Specify a bounding box and query to get trail details like distance, slope, author, and location.

Instructions

Search for routes on Wikiloc based on geographical area.

Args:
    query: Search query (e.g. "Vall de Núria - Ribes de Freser").
    sw_lat: Latitude of the southwest corner of the bounding box.
    sw_lon: Longitude of the southwest corner of the bounding box.
    ne_lat: Latitude of the northeast corner of the bounding box.
    ne_lon: Longitude of the northeast corner of the bounding box.
    page: The page of results to fetch.
    max_results: The maximum number of results to return.


Output: 
    "title": Name of the trail,
    "url": Url,
    "distance_km": Distance in KM,
    "slope": Slope of the trail in meters,
    "author": Author of the trail,
    "location": Location of the trail,
    "trailrank": Punctuation of the trail.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>",
      "sw_lat": "<sw_lat>",
      "sw_lon": "<sw_lon>",
      "ne_lat": "<ne_lat>",
      "ne_lon": "<ne_lon>"
    },
    "name": "get_routes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`query`	Yes
`ne_lat`	Yes
`ne_lon`	Yes
`sw_lat`	Yes
`sw_lon`	Yes
`max_results`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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 transparently describes the output format and key parameters, and the read-only nature is evident from 'search'. It could be enhanced with explicit notes on pagination or error handling, but for a search tool, the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact Args list and an Output list. Every line adds value—there is no filler. The formatting makes it easy to scan, and it remains appropriately sized given the number of parameters and the need to describe the output.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It explains the tool's function, all parameters, and the output fields. However, it does not explicitly state that the output is a list of objects, which could be ambiguous, but the plural 'routes' and pagination parameters strongly imply a list. Minor gap prevents a perfect score.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully with an 'Args' section that explains every parameter, including a concrete example for 'query' and clear definitions for bounding box coordinates. This adds significant meaning beyond the JSON schema, which only lists types and defaults.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for routes on Wikiloc based on geographical area.' It uses a specific verb (search) with a clear resource (routes on Wikiloc) and the primary method (geographical area). This fully distinguishes it from any potential sibling tools, even though none are listed.

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 context for when to use the tool: when searching for routes by geographic area. It includes parameters like bounding box coordinates and query, which imply the appropriate scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but since no sibling tools exist, this is acceptable.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools

get_routesA