OpenStreetMap MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as geocode_address for address-to-coordinates and reverse_geocode for coordinates-to-address. However, some overlap exists: explore_area and analyze_neighborhood both provide area profiles, and find_nearby_places and search_category both search for places by category, which could cause confusion without careful reading of descriptions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as analyze_commute, find_ev_charging_stations, and suggest_meeting_point. This predictability makes it easy for agents to understand and use the toolset without naming confusion.
Tool Count5/5
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for an OpenStreetMap-based geospatial analysis platform. Each tool serves a specific purpose, from routing and geocoding to specialized searches (e.g., schools, parking, EV charging), covering a comprehensive range of location-based queries without being overwhelming.
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides strong coverage for geospatial analysis, including geocoding, routing, area exploration, and targeted searches. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool for editing or contributing to OpenStreetMap data, but the available tools support most common location-based workflows effectively.
Average 4/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored. Lowest: 3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
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.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is 'powerful' and creates 'comprehensive' and 'detailed' results, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify data sources, rate limits, authentication needs, whether it's a read-only operation, or potential costs/limitations. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, elaboration, usage context, parameters, and returns. It's appropriately sized (about 100 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Some sentences could be more concise (e.g., 'This powerful analysis tool...' is somewhat verbose), but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.
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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides a basic but incomplete picture. It covers purpose, usage context, parameters, and return structure, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., data sources, limits) and full parameter semantics. Without an output schema, the 'Returns' section adds value by describing the response format, but it's not exhaustive. This is adequate but has clear gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description includes an 'Args' section that lists parameters (latitude, longitude, radius) with minimal semantics (e.g., 'Center point latitude', 'Search radius in meters'). However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints (e.g., valid ranges for latitude/longitude, maximum radius), units beyond 'meters' for radius, or format details beyond 'decimal degrees'. This partially compensates but leaves important gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a comprehensive profile of an area including all amenities and features' and 'creates a detailed overview of a neighborhood or area by identifying and categorizing all geographic features, amenities, and points of interest.' This specifies the verb (generate/create) and resource (area profile), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'analyze_neighborhood' or 'find_nearby_places'.
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 implied usage context: 'Excellent for neighborhood research, area comparisons, and location-based decision making.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_neighborhood' or 'find_nearby_places' from the sibling list, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
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 the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is 'advanced' and returns 'counts and proximity scores,' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data sources, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description adds some context about outputs but misses key operational details.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses efficient sentences, but could be more concise by reducing redundancy (e.g., 'Invaluable for...' adds little value). Overall, it's appropriately sized with minimal waste.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by detailing return values (e.g., overall score, walkability assessment). However, it lacks information on behavioral aspects like performance or limitations, making it incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and complex functionality.
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 adds meaning by explaining parameters: 'Center point latitude/longitude' and 'Analysis radius in meters (defaults to 1000m/1km).' However, it doesn't cover all nuances (e.g., valid ranges for latitude/longitude or radius constraints), leaving gaps despite the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a comprehensive neighborhood analysis focused on livability factors' and specifies it evaluates amenities, transportation, green spaces, and services. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'find_nearby_places' or 'find_schools_nearby' by offering a comprehensive analysis rather than specific searches, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 'real estate decisions, relocation planning, and neighborhood comparisons,' providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'explore_area' or 'search_category,' and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.
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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the calculation and recommendation process but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify what algorithm is used for calculating the 'optimal' center, whether it considers travel time or just geographic midpoint, what data sources it uses for venue recommendations, or any rate limits or authentication requirements.
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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, explanation of functionality, usage context, parameter details, and return values. While slightly longer than minimal, every sentence adds value. The Args/Returns sections could be integrated more seamlessly, but overall it's efficiently organized.
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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate coverage of purpose, parameters, and returns. However, it lacks details about the algorithm used, data sources, error conditions, or performance characteristics that would be helpful for an AI agent to understand behavioral boundaries and limitations.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter semantics. It explains that 'locations' is a list of dictionaries with latitude/longitude pairs and provides a concrete example. It also explains 'venue_type' as a string with enumerated options like 'cafe', 'restaurant', etc., and specifies a default value of 'cafe'.
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 specific verbs ('find', 'calculates', 'recommends') and resources ('optimal meeting place', 'central meeting point', 'suitable venues'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_nearby_places' by emphasizing multi-person coordination and venue recommendations based on calculated centrality.
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 this tool ('planning social gatherings, business meetings, or any situation where multiple people need to converge from different starting points'), but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools like 'find_nearby_places' or 'explore_area'.
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 provided, the description carries full burden and discloses some behavioral traits: it performs a 'comprehensive search', organizes results 'by category and subcategory', and returns structured data. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or potential limitations like data source constraints.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are well-structured, though some sentences in the middle paragraph could be more concise (e.g., 'Essential for...' could be integrated more tightly).
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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining both inputs and return structure. However, for a tool with no annotations and multiple siblings, it could better address when to use alternatives and provide more behavioral context like data freshness or source attribution.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic meaning for all 5 parameters: latitude/longitude as 'center point', radius as 'search radius in meters', categories as 'OSM categories', and limit as 'maximum number of total results'. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('discover', 'search') and resources ('points of interest', 'amenities', 'establishments'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing comprehensive geographic search rather than specific categories like schools or EV stations.
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 'location-based recommendations, neighborhood analysis, and proximity-based decision making', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_category' or 'explore_area'. No exclusions or clear alternatives are provided.
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 provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool provides comprehensive routing information and mentions output minimization capabilities, but doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or performance characteristics. It adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.
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 well-structured with purpose statement, behavioral context, parameter documentation, return value explanation, and example. While comprehensive, some sentences could be more concise. The front-loaded purpose statement is effective.
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 (8 parameters, routing tool) with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining parameters thoroughly, describing return values, and providing an example. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like error handling or performance expectations.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations including data types, formats, default values, and usage context. Each parameter is clearly documented with meaningful descriptions beyond what the bare schema provides.
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 specific verbs ('calculate detailed route directions') and resources ('between two geographic points'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it uses OpenStreetMap/OSRM for routing. This is precise and differentiates from tools like analyze_commute or find_nearby_places.
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 context by mentioning routing between two points and output minimization, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like analyze_commute or geocode_address. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are provided.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well describing what the tool does (analysis, comparison, providing metrics) and mentions it's 'advanced' and 'time-sensitive routing', but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error conditions. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.
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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, capabilities, use cases, args, returns) and front-loaded with the core functionality. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise - some phrases like 'commute-relevant data' and 'lifestyle planning' could be tightened. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.
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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description does a strong job covering purpose, parameters, and return values. It explains what the tool returns in detail despite no output schema. The main gap is lack of behavioral constraints and error handling information, which would be valuable for a tool with this many parameters and no annotations.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description must fully compensate, which it does excellently. It provides detailed semantic explanations for all 6 parameters: clarifying home/work coordinate pairs, listing available transportation modes with specific options, explaining the optional departure time's purpose and format. The description adds substantial meaning beyond what the bare schema provides.
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 specific verbs ('analyze', 'compare', 'provide') and resources ('commute options between two locations', 'multiple transportation modes', 'detailed metrics'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on commute analysis between home/work locations rather than general routing or nearby searches.
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 about when to use this tool ('essential for real estate decisions, lifestyle planning, and workplace relocation analysis'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools. It implies usage for commute-specific analysis but lacks explicit comparison to similar tools like 'get_route_directions'.
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 provided, the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool returns (list of facilities with specific attributes) and mentions filtering capabilities, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error conditions. The description adds some context about what information is included but misses key operational details.
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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, elaboration, usage context, parameters, and returns. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more smoothly. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 4 parameters and complex return data.
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 (geospatial search with filtering) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description does a good job covering what the tool does, what parameters mean, and what information is returned. It could be more complete by addressing limitations (e.g., geographic coverage, data sources) but provides sufficient context for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter semantics. It explains what each parameter means (latitude/longitude as center point, radius as search distance, parking_type as filter), provides default values, and gives examples of parking_type values. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 tool's purpose as 'Locate parking facilities near a specific location' and specifies it finds 'parking options (lots, garages, street parking)'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_ev_charging_stations' and 'find_nearby_places' by focusing specifically on parking facilities, not general places or other infrastructure.
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 this tool: 'Useful for trip planning, city navigation, and evaluating parking availability in urban areas.' It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, but the context strongly implies this is for parking-specific searches versus more general location tools.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function and output format ('Results include complete location details and metadata'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or pagination. For a search tool with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps in operational context.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement, followed by usage context, parameter details, and return information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections enhance readability without unnecessary verbosity.
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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete, covering purpose, usage, parameters, and return structure. It adequately informs an agent, but could improve by addressing potential limitations like result limits or error cases, which would enhance completeness for a search operation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 6 parameters, the description compensates well by explaining all parameters in the 'Args' section, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It clarifies 'category' as OSM categories with examples, defines geographic boundaries, and explains 'subcategories' as optional filters. However, it doesn't specify units or constraints for coordinates, leaving some semantic gaps.
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 specific verbs ('search for specific types of places') and resources ('within a defined geographic area'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'find_nearby_places' or 'explore_area' by emphasizing category-based filtering within a rectangular region. It explicitly mentions what makes it unique: targeted searches by type (restaurants, schools, etc.) within geographic boundaries.
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 this tool ('particularly useful for filtering places by type within a neighborhood or city district'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. It implies usage based on category-based geographic searches without detailing exclusions or direct comparisons to other tools.
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 provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the search behavior (distance-based, filterable) and output format, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error conditions. The behavioral description is adequate but lacks operational details.
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 with purpose statement, specialized context, and organized parameter/return sections. Every sentence earns its place: the first states purpose, second explains specialization, third gives usage context, then clear parameter explanations, and finally output format. No wasted 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?
For a 5-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: clear purpose, usage context, detailed parameter semantics, and return value structure. The main gap is lack of operational constraints (rate limits, auth) that would be helpful given the specialized nature.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters in detail. It provides meaning beyond schema titles: clarifies latitude/longitude as 'center point', radius defaults and units, connector_types with examples, and min_power units. This adds substantial value beyond the bare 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 tool's purpose as 'Locate electric vehicle charging stations near a specific location' with specific verb ('locate') and resource ('EV charging stations'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on EV infrastructure rather than general places, schools, parking, or routing.
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 ('Essential for EV owners planning trips or evaluating potential charging stops') that indicates when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (like find_nearby_places for general POIs).
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (search with filtering) and mentions the return format, but lacks details about rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error conditions. It provides basic behavioral context but misses important operational details.
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 with clear sections: purpose statement, detailed explanation, Args with parameter details, and Returns section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. The formatting makes it easy to scan and understand.
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?
For a search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of inputs and return format. However, without annotations and with no output schema, it could benefit from more detail about result limitations, pagination, or data sources. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps in operational context.
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?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations in the Args section. It clarifies latitude/longitude as decimal degrees, radius defaults to 2000m/2km, and provides examples for education_levels. The description adds substantial value beyond the bare 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('locate', 'identifies') and resources ('educational institutions', 'schools, colleges'), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on education-specific filtering. It goes beyond a simple search by emphasizing the specialized nature for education-related queries.
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 this tool ('for families evaluating neighborhoods or real estate purchases with education considerations'), but does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the core functionality well and mentions the output includes 'List of matching locations' with detailed metadata, which implies it returns multiple results. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether the tool uses external services (e.g., OSM suggests OpenStreetMap). The description adds value but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.
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 appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, explains usage context, then details parameters and returns in labeled sections. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second explains input/output, the third gives use cases, and the parameter/return sections provide essential details without 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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter details, and return format comprehensively. The main gap is the lack of behavioral context (e.g., service limitations, error cases) which would be important for a geocoding tool that likely relies on external services. However, it provides enough information for basic usage.
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 description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage (just 'address' as a string), but the description adds: 'The address, place name, landmark, or description to geocode' with concrete examples ('Empire State Building', '123 Main St, Springfield'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation, giving clear meaning to the single parameter.
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: 'Convert an address or place name to geographic coordinates with detailed location information.' It specifies the verb ('convert'), resource ('address or place name'), and output ('geographic coordinates with detailed location information'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like reverse_geocode (which does the opposite) and other location-based tools that perform different functions.
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 this tool: 'for mapping, navigation, location-based analysis, and as input to other geospatial tools.' It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on forward geocoding (address to coordinates) versus reverse_geocode (coordinates to address), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the general 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the comprehensive nature of the return data and mentions the coordinate system (WGS84), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or data source limitations that would be valuable for an agent.
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 with clear sections (purpose, usage context, Args, Returns) and every sentence earns its place. It's appropriately sized for a 2-parameter tool with no annotations, providing necessary information without redundancy or fluff. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.
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 moderate complexity, 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the essentials. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return format in detail. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the Returns section provides a comprehensive list of what to expect, making it reasonably complete for agent use.
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%, so the description must fully compensate. It successfully adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema by explaining what latitude and longitude represent ('specific point on Earth', 'decimal degrees, WGS84'), their format, and their purpose in the geocoding process. The Args section provides clear semantic context for both 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's purpose with specific verb ('convert') and resource ('geographic coordinates'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on reverse geocoding rather than forward geocoding (geocode_address) or other spatial analyses. The opening sentence directly explains what the tool does without restating the name.
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 about when to use this tool ('useful for translating GPS coordinates into human-readable locations'), which implicitly distinguishes it from forward geocoding and other spatial tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings.
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:

[![open-streetmap-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jagan-shanmugam/open-streetmap-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jagan-shanmugam/open-streetmap-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![open-streetmap-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jagan-shanmugam/open-streetmap-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jagan-shanmugam/open-streetmap-mcp)

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/jagan-shanmugam/open-streetmap-mcp'

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