RandoForge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

generate_loop_candidates

Generate up to five measured hiking loop options from a start point for a target distance and elevation gain across multiple directions, ranked by trail quality and avoiding completed routes.

Instructions

Génère automatiquement des boucles depuis un départ pour une distance (et un D+) cible, dans plusieurs directions, et renvoie les n meilleures, déjà mesurées sur le MNT.

    Classement : écart à la distance et au D+ demandés, pénalité pour les allers-retours et le
    goudron, bonus pour les sentiers balisés ; `avoid_done` pénalise les boucles qui reprennent
    des randos marquées comme faites (mark_done). Prévoir ~20–40 s.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`n`	No
`name`	No
`start`	Yes
`profile`	No	hiking-mountain
`d_plus_m`	No
`avoid_done`	No
`directions`	No
`distance_km`	Yes
`max_sac_scale`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`notes`	Yes
`tried`	Yes
`failed`	Yes
`candidates`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses ranking criteria (distance/D+ deviation, penalties for out-and-back and asphalt, bonus for marked trails), the avoid_done behavior, and expected runtime (~20-40s). Missing: error conditions, output format details (though output schema exists).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Reasonably concise, front-loaded with the core action, then ranking logic, then a practical runtime note. No wasted sentences, though the middle ranking clause is dense.

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 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and complex ranking behavior, the description is helpful but incomplete. It omits specifics about most parameters and doesn't clarify direction/profile tradeoffs; output schema exists so return values needn't be explained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains avoid_done and d_plus_m ('distance et D+ cible'), but leaves n, profile, directions, max_sac_scale, and name undocumented. The description adds some meaning but doesn't cover all 9 parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (génère/generates) and resource (boucles/loops) with the key constraint (from a start point, for a target distance and D+). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like route_between or find_hiking_routes.

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?

Implies generation of loop candidates and references avoid_done and mark_done, giving some context on when to use it. However, no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no named alternative for one-way routes or point-to-point.

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