ThinAir Geo

Official

by ThinAirTelematics

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions(1)

JavaScript

Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: geocoding variants (free-text, structured, batch, reverse, intersection), routing (directions, map matching, trace, distance matrix), search (places vs explore), and utilities (traffic, weather, locate, geofence, place_get, quota, issue_api_key). No overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools use a verb_noun pattern (reverse_geocode, search_places, resolve_intersection, etc.), though a few are single-word verbs (directions, traffic, weather, explore, locate, quota, geocode). The convention is lower_snake_case throughout, and the pattern is predictable despite minor inconsistency.
Tool Count4/5
19 tools is slightly above the ideal range but justified given the breadth of geo functionality: geocoding, routing, traffic, weather, POI search, map matching, geofencing, and account management. Each tool earns its place; the set is not bloated.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for geographic queries: input (various geocoding), routing (directions, distance matrix, isochrones), map matching, POI search, traffic, weather, geofencing, and account management. No obvious gaps for a query-only geo API.
Average 3.9/5 across 19 of 19 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
Tools from this server were used 46 times in the last 30 days.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
View related servers

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention accuracy, error handling, rate limits, authentication, or input format, leaving the agent underinformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, but it omits critical details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter documentation, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, input format, or limitations, making it inadequate for a tool with no other structured aid.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is an empty object (no properties), and the description does not clarify how to provide coordinates. Schema coverage is 100% only because there are no parameters, but the description adds no value beyond the schema.
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 action ('convert coordinates') and the resource ('nearest address, street, or place'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like geocode (which does the reverse).
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 explicitly specifies the context for use ('starting from GPS coordinates or a map position'), but does not mention when not to use or name alternatives like geocode.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While the description explains behavior (boundary counts, return format), it contradicts the input schema which defines zero parameters. The tool presumably requires inputs (polygon and points) not reflected in the schema, causing confusion and reducing reliability.
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?
Three concise sentences with no wasted words. The action and key details are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the output but critically omits how to provide the required inputs, which are absent from the schema. For a tool of moderate complexity, this is a significant gap.
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 no schema parameters, baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by naming expected inputs (polygon, points) but fails to clarify how these are supplied, leaving ambiguity. Schema coverage is high vacuously, so no penalty.
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 tests containment of points in a GeoJSON polygon, specifies supported geometry types, and clarifies boundary point handling. It distinctly sets this tool apart from siblings like reverse_geocode or directions.
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 usage for pure geometric containment but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance is limited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist. Description notes output is GeoJSON and that multiple bands return nested polygons, but it does not disclose limits, authentication requirements, or the need for an origin parameter. The example parameter 'contours_minutes' is not in the schema, causing confusion.
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?
Description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a concrete example. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lack of schema, description omits how to specify the origin, valid parameter values, error handling, and other required inputs. Output format is covered but insufficient for a tool with implied parameters and no output schema.
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?
The input schema is an empty object, so the description adds meaning by mentioning 'contours_minutes' and its usage. However, this creates inconsistency since the schema does not define any parameter. Baseline 3 adjusted for added information but with contradiction.
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?
Description clearly states the tool generates travel-time or travel-distance reachability polygons from an origin. This is a specific verb+resource, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools like directions or geocode.
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 provides an example of passing multiple bands but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. Usage context is implied but not directly addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the high-level behavior but fails to explain how inputs (category, point) are provided since schema has no parameters.
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?
Two clear sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given empty schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description lacks crucial details about how to invoke the tool (what parameters are needed, if any). The agent cannot know how to pass the 'near a point' or 'category' requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema is empty (0 parameters) and description does not clarify how the agent should specify the category or location. This leaves the agent with no guidance on invocation.
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?
Description states exactly what the tool does (category-specific POI search near a point) with concrete examples (gas stations, truck stops, etc.) and distinguishes it from the sibling 'explore' tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use this tool (when user has a specific TYPE of place) and when not to (for broader DISCOVERY, use explore instead).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds some behavioral context (coverage, degraded/empty values) but omits details like authorization, rate limits, or response format. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and immediately following with key usage context. Every word serves a purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description fails to explain how to specify a location, which is critical for a tool that requires location input. The missing input mechanism is a major gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description implies a 'location' parameter, but the input schema is an empty object with no properties. This directly contradicts the schema and provides misleading information, adding no meaningful 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 retrieves 'live traffic conditions, congestion, and speed for a location,' which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'directions' or 'weather.' No ambiguity.
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 specifies coverage areas (30 major US metros) and warns about degraded values outside, guiding when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools but provides clear context on limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses support for street-level resolution and proximity biasing, which are relevant behavioral traits. However, with no annotations, the description could detail data freshness, error behavior, or response format, which are missing.
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?
Two concise sentences front-loading purpose and usage. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured with separate sections.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, and the description only vaguely mentions 'coordinates and structured location results'. For a geocoding tool, missing details on result fields, coordinate format, or multiple matches makes it incomplete given the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is an empty object with no parameters. The description mentions the input is text but does not clarify how to provide it (e.g., query parameter or request body). Schema coverage is 100% only because there are no parameters, but the description fails to specify the input structure.
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 converts addresses, place names, streets, or intersections into coordinates and structured location results. It distinguishes from reverse_geocode by specifying direction, and from batch_geocode by indicating single input.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: when input is text and coordinates are needed before routing, weather, or search. Does not list when not to use or mention alternatives like batch_geocode for multiple queries, but provides useful context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes ETAs are in ISO-8601 in the destination's local timezone. But it does not mention side effects, data permanence, authorization needs, or rate limits. Some behavioral context is provided, but gaps remain.
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?
The description is three sentences and about 60 words, efficiently conveying purpose, a usage hint, and output format. It is front-loaded with the main action. Minor redundancy could be trimmed.
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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining output format (ISO-8601 ETA). Parameter details are missing due to schema mismatch. Compared to siblings, this is the only directions tool, so differentiation is less critical. Still, more detail on inputs and edge cases would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is an empty object (no parameters), yet the description references 'preset', 'costing', and 'truck_*' knobs. This contradiction reduces trust. The description adds meaning beyond the schema, but the schema's emptiness makes the added info suspect. Baseline from high schema coverage does not apply because schema is nonexistent.
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 it generates routes, ETAs, and turn-by-turn directions. It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('routes, ETAs, and turn-by-turn directions'). Among siblings like geocode, explore, and traffic, this is distinct as the only routing tool.
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 advises preferring the 'preset' arg over raw costing, with examples like car_default, truck_53, etc., and explains that presets keep trucks on freight corridors. It mentions advanced callers can use raw knobs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives for similar tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it returns matched:false when no routable road is near, stating 'never a guess.' It lists returned fields and optional elevation, but does not cover authentication or rate limits. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the burden and does well.
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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and lists outputs efficiently. No redundant words; every clause adds value.
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?
While the description specifies return fields and failure behavior, it fails to explain how the input coordinate is provided, given an empty input schema. This omission reduces completeness for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema declares 0 parameters, but the description mentions an 'include_elevation' optional parameter. This contradicts the schema and could confuse an AI agent. With 100% schema coverage vacuously, the description adds misleading information rather than clarifying.
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 snaps a coordinate to the road network, returning specific road context fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like reverse_geocode and directions by focusing on road snapping and road attributes.
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 usage for road snapping but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses returning a coordinate, confidence score, and 'fleet-safe fallback', but does not explain what the fallback entails or any permissions or side effects.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, no wasted words.
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 description covers output (coordinate, confidence, fallback) despite no output schema, but lacks clear input specification. For a simple tool without annotations, it is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no properties, so description must define parameters. It mentions 'street1 × street2 within a locality/region/country' but does not specify format, whether these are separate fields or a single string, or any required structure. This ambiguity hinders correct invocation.
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 resolves a named cross-street to a coordinate with confidence and fallback, and it distinguishes from geocode for free-form streets.
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?
It explicitly says when to use (named cross-street) and when not (free-form, use geocode). However, it could mention other siblings like reverse_geocode or geocode_structured.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain how the location parameter is provided—the input schema is empty, yet weather must be location-dependent. There is no mention of rate limits, update frequency, or output format, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 consists of two concise sentences with no extraneous words. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description omits critical information about how the location is determined given the empty input schema. Without an output schema, the return format is also unaddressed. The description is incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters and description coverage is 100% (trivial). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable as none exist.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current and forecast weather for a location'). It includes details like severe weather alerts and minute-by-minute precipitation, which differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on geocoding, directions, or API management.
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 explicitly provides use cases: 'destination conditions, travel planning, or route risk assessment.' While it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives, the usage guidance is clear and sufficient for a tool with no overlapping siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions the output content and point range constraint but fails to explain how the input trace is supplied since the input schema is empty. This missing detail on input mechanism harms 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?
Two sentences, concise and front-loaded. First sentence enumerates output details, second sentence offers alternative tool. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain both input and output. It explains output well but omits how the trace input is provided (no parameters, no reference to prior calls). This is a significant gap for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter information because none exist, which is acceptable.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns per-segment road/network attributes for a matched GPS trace, listing specific attributes. It distinguishes itself from sibling map_match by noting that for just the matched route line, use map_match.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (to get attributes for a matched GPS trace) and when not to use (if only need the route line, use map_match). Provides clear alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions filtering, sorting, and layer capabilities, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, or output format. The behavioral summary is adequate but lacks depth.
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?
Two sentences, each providing distinct value: the first defines the tool's core functionality, the second clarifies when to use an alternative. No extraneous content.
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?
While the description covers purpose and alternatives, it lacks details on how to specify 'near a location' (e.g., coordinate input). The empty input schema and missing output schema leave significant gaps for an agent to correctly use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so baseline is 4. The description mentions filtering and sorting options but does not map them to parameters since none exist. The description does not add value beyond the schema, but that is acceptable given no 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?
The description clearly states the tool is for 'BROWSING / DISCOVERY search' of cities, neighbourhoods, or mixed venues near a location. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'search_places' by noting that tool is for specific POI categories.
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 explicitly tells agents when not to use this tool: 'For specific POI categories, use `search_places` instead.' However, it does not provide further guidance on prerequisites or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses structured per-record results and max batch size, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or rate limit implications. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.
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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no unnecessary 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?
Covers purpose, usage guidance, and batch limit. Lacks input format details and output schema, but given the tool's simplicity and sibling context, it is largely adequate.
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?
The input schema is empty, so the description adds meaning by mentioning addresses, intersections, or place queries. However, it does not specify how to structure these inputs, leaving ambiguity.
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 geocodes multiple addresses, intersections, or place queries in one request, distinguishing it from the sibling 'geocode' tool which handles single requests.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to use for bulk operations instead of repeated single geocode calls, and specifies a batch limit of 50.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool is free to call, never counts against quota, never blocked. However, lacking details on response format or additional behavioral traits holds it back from a higher score.
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?
Two sentences with key information front-loaded. No wasted words. The behavioral and usage guidance is efficiently integrated.
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 tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and a key behavioral trait. Minor gap: it could describe the return value briefly for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so baseline score is 4. Description adds no param info but doesn't need to.
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 checks current usage, remaining limits, plan, and quota breakdown. It uses specific verbs and resource, and given sibling tools (geocoding, directions, etc.), it is unique and distinguishable.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this proactively when the user asks about usage or seems near limits.' While it does not state when not to use or compare to alternatives, the context makes it clear there are no relevant alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the 625-pair cap, a key behavioral constraint. No annotations provided, but description adds value by mentioning the limit. Does not mention rate limits or cost.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with core purpose. Every word earns its place.
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?
No output schema, so description should clarify return format (e.g., units, structure). Mentions 'road distances and travel times' but not detailed enough for complex use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters in input schema, so description has no need to explain them. Baseline 4 for 0 params; schema coverage is 100% trivially.
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?
Clearly states the tool computes road distances and travel times for origin-destination pairs, using free-text addresses or lat,lon. Distinguishes from siblings like directions (step-by-step) and traffic.
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?
Provides explicit use cases: fleet dispatch, nearest-depot, bulk ETA tables. Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but context implies directions for step-by-step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the key is tied to the existing plan and counts as 1 query against daily quota. However, it does not explicitly state whether old keys are invalidated, which is a minor transparency gap.
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?
Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, use cases, plan linkage, quota impact. No redundancy, front-loaded with the main action.
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?
Covers purpose, use cases, and constraints. However, it omits the return value (the generated key) and does not mention error conditions (e.g., quota exceeded). For a tool with no output schema, describing the output is essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description explains the tool's effect without needing parameter details, making it sufficient.
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 uses a specific verb 'Mint' and resource 'API key', clearly targeting the current authenticated user/tenant. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., geocode, directions) which are unrelated to API key management.
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 explicitly states use cases: 'CLI workflows, key rotation, or MCP clients that hide the configured Bearer'. It also mentions quota consumption. No exclusions needed given sibling tools are unrelated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes input constraints (2-100 points) and output details. Lacks mention of rate limits or side effects, but no annotations exist.
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?
Two sentences convey function, constraints, output, and alternative. No redundancy.
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?
Covers input constraints and output elements. No output schema, but description compensates. Could mention error handling or result structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Even though there are no explicit parameters, the description explains the input 'raw GPS trace' with point range. Schema coverage is trivial.
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?
Clearly states the tool snaps GPS traces to road network and returns route data. Distinguishes from directions tool.
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?
Explicitly mentions alternative 'directions' for route planning. Could be more specific about other siblings like trace_attributes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes a read-only lookup operation with no side effects. It discloses return fields. With no annotations provided, the description adequately covers the behavior for a simple query tool, though it omits rate limits or authentication details which are less critical here.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, efficient and no wasted words. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return values. The tool is simple and the description covers all essential aspects for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so description cannot add value beyond schema. Per calibration, no params baseline is 4. Description correctly lists return fields, which is helpful.
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 looks up a place by its ThinAir ID, lists the source tools that return such IDs, and specifies the output fields (canonical name, label, layer, coordinates). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like reverse_geocode and geocode.
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?
Explicitly describes when to use (when you have a ThinAir ID from specific tools) and what to expect. While it doesn't state when not to use, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description adds constraint (at least one component required) and implies no side effects. It adds value beyond schema which has no parameters.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose and components, second provides usage guidance and constraint. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 no output schema and no annotations, description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and constraint. Missing return format but adequate for a simple geocoding tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Description lists components (address, locality, region, postalcode, country) but lacks format details. Still adds meaning beyond empty schema.
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 verb (geocode), resource (discrete address components), and differentiates from free-text geocoding and resolve_intersection. This provides specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly indicates when to use (fielded input from forms, CRM, stop tables) and suggests an alternative (resolve_intersection for named intersections).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![thinair-geo MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ThinAirTelematics/thinair-geo/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ThinAirTelematics/thinair-geo)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![thinair-geo MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ThinAirTelematics/thinair-geo/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ThinAirTelematics/thinair-geo)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ThinAirTelematics/thinair-geo'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server