Skip to main content
Glama

Reachable area (isochrone)

isochrone
Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate the area reachable from a point within a given time budget for walk, cycle, or drive modes. Enter coordinates or a place name to receive a polygon of accessible streets.

Instructions

Isochrone: the area reachable from a point within minutes, by mode.

Give the point as lat/lon, or as `where` — a {"lat", "lon"} dict, a
GERS id, or a free-text place name — but not both (and not neither);
either way returns {"error": "bad_request"} naming the choice. A
`where` given as an id/name adds a compact "resolved": {"name", "id",
"lat", "lon", "matched_by"} to the answer; absent for lat/lon or a
{lat,lon} where.

Builds a street graph from Overture's transportation theme and runs
Dijkstra out to the time budget. Each mode
excludes its own set of unusable road classes (e.g.
drive excludes footway/path/steps; cycle and drive exclude
motorway/trunk... drive itself allows motorways) and respects one-way
restrictions for cycle/drive (walk ignores them). speed_m_s overrides
the mode's default speed model (walk 1.4 m/s, cycle 4.2 m/s, drive
per-edge from Overture's speed_limits or a class-based default table)
with a single constant. Returns {"polygon": <GeoJSON Polygon>, "stats":
{reachable_nodes, max_radius_m, area_km2}, ...}. The polygon traces the
boundary of reached nodes' occupied grid cells (falling back to a
convex hull for very small reachable sets); reachable_nodes/
max_radius_m are always exact, only the drawn polygon shape
approximates, and is decimated/simplified to fit the token budget.

radius_m optionally overrides the auto-derived graph extraction radius
(capped per mode: 5km walk, 15km cycle, 60km drive); passing something
larger than the cap returns a structured error instead of silently
truncating. An unrecognized mode string returns a structured
{"error": "unsupported_mode"}. minutes must be > 0 and radius_m (if
given) must be >= 0, else returns {"error": "bad_request"}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latNo
lonNo
modeNoTravel mode. Default: stored preference, else walk.
whereNo
minutesNo
radius_mNo
speed_m_sNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Install Server

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes far beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: discloses the Dijkstra-on-Overture graph algorithm, per-mode road-class exclusions, one-way handling, default speed models, the exact-stats vs approximate-polygon distinction with token-budget decimation, and radius caps that return errors instead of truncating. Error semantics for unsupported modes and bad requests are fully specified and consistent with the annotations.

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 long (~400 words) but nearly every sentence carries functional content, and the flow from purpose to origin to algorithm to output to errors is logical. Minor bloat: the parenthetical road-class enumeration rambles somewhat and 'but not both (and not neither)' is a clunky double negative.

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?

Covers origin specification rules, all mode behaviors, the time budget, optional radius/speed overrides, cap violations, and every error path, while the existing output schema handles return-value details. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly in one place.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 14%, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it explains the lat/lon–where mutual exclusion and 'resolved' side-effect, minutes > 0, per-mode radius_m caps (5/15/60 km) with structured errors, and speed_m_s overrides with mode defaults. Every one of the 7 parameters gains meaning that the schema does not provide.

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?

Opens with a precise definition — 'the area reachable from a point within minutes, by mode' — and grounds it with a concrete return shape ('polygon' + 'stats'). Though no sibling is named, the area-reachability scope is unmistakable next to distance/matrix/route siblings like within_distance and travel_time_matrix.

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 primary usage is implied by the definition ('reachable from a point within minutes') rather than stated as explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. It does give clear operational context for choosing origin form (lat/lon vs where, not both/neither), but tool-selection criteria against siblings are absent.

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

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/chuofringer/placeroot'

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