Skip to main content
Glama
kimhjort

aria-mcp-drivetime-dk

by kimhjort
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation3/5

    drive_time and leave_by overlap significantly, as leave_by is explicitly a wrapper for drive_time with arriveBy. However, the descriptions clarify their relationship and distinct use cases, so an agent can differentiate them with careful reading.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    Naming is inconsistent: 'drive_time' and 'leave_by' use underscores, while 'geocode' does not. The verb styles also differ (verb_noun, verb_preposition, single verb), making the pattern unpredictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is appropriate for the domain: geocode for place resolution, drive_time for core computation, and leave_by as a convenience wrapper. Each tool serves a clear purpose and no tool is redundant.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the essential workflow: resolving addresses, computing drive time, and arriving by a deadline. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of batch or alternative routes, but these are not critical for the primary use case.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses data source (OSM), that duration is free-flow without live traffic, the computation of leaveByLocal when arriveBy is given, and the buffer mechanism. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., place not found) or any rate limits.

    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 one paragraph of 4–5 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by input/output details and a critical caveat. Every sentence adds value without fluff.

    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, the description covers return values (distanceKm, durationMin, resolved place names, leaveByLocal) and explains the buffer and arrival parameters. It could mention potential errors (e.g., invalid place lookup) but is otherwise complete for a non-destructive routing 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?

    Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by providing example inputs for 'from'/'to', explaining the 'arriveBy' format (ISO datetime or HH:MM for today in Copenhagen), and detailing how 'bufferMin' is used in leaveByLocal calculation. This adds significant context.

    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 computes car driving distance and typical travel time between two places in Denmark using OpenStreetMap data. It specifies the verb (compute), resource (distance and time), geographic scope (Denmark), data source (OSM), and output keys (distanceKm, durationMin, leaveByLocal). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 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?

    While the description implies the use case for driving time in Denmark and includes important caveats (no live traffic, rush hour allowance), it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like geocode or leave_by. No verbal 'when-not' guidance or alternatives are given.

    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 description carries full burden. It discloses the use of Nominatim and output fields, but lacks mention of potential rate limits, error handling, or external dependency constraints.

    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 redundant words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds 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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, use case, and return values. It could mention potential limitations of the external geocoding service, but is largely complete.

    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?

    Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter. The description adds context by specifying 'Danish place name or address' and giving examples, which improves meaning 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 it resolves a Danish place name or address to coordinates using Nominatim. It specifies output fields and connects to drive_time, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

    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 says 'useful for verifying that a place name is unambiguous before using it in drive_time,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention 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 discloses return fields (leaveByLocal, arriveByLocal, durationMin, distanceKm), no-live-traffic notice, and gives an example output. Adequately describes behavioral traits.

    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?

    Single paragraph with all essential info, example included. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but very efficient and clear.

    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, parameters, return fields, and example. No output schema, but description sufficiently details outputs. Missing edge cases like timezone handling, but adequate for a convenience 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?

    Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. Description adds extra meaning: 'from' and 'to' accept Danish place names or lat,lon, 'arriveBy' format options, bufferMin default. Adds value beyond 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?

    Clearly states it's a convenience tool for calculating leave time given destination and required arrival time, distinguishing it from sibling drive_time by requiring explicit arriveBy parameter.

    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 clear usage context: given destination and required arrival time. Compares to drive_time with arriveBy, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the sibling comparison.

    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

aria-mcp-drivetime-dk MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

aria-mcp-drivetime-dk MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/kimhjort/aria-mcp-drivetime-dk'

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