Plan cycling routes with turn-by-turn directions, using current road conditions to avoid one-way streets and closures. Get route options and navigation details.
骑行路径规划（路径规划 2.0，v5 接口）。考虑单行线、封路等。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| origin | Yes | 起点坐标，格式"经度,纬度" | |
| destination | Yes | 终点坐标，格式"经度,纬度" | |
| show_fields | No | （可选）控制返回字段，可选：cost（耗时）、navi（导航动作）、polyline（坐标串） | |
| alternative_route | No | （可选）返回备选路线条数：1、2、3 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully adds that one-way streets and road closures are considered, which is real algorithmic behavior. But it does not mention return behavior, whether the operation is read-only, response format, or any rate/usage constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence and front-loaded with the main purpose. The parenthetical '路径规划 2.0，v5 接口' is internal version detail that adds little for an agent, but overall there is minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple four-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it would be stronger if it indicated what the tool returns and gave any guidance about how alternatives or route fields behave.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and their formats. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not an improvement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation: 骑行路径规划 (cycling route planning), with a specific resource and mode. The "骑行" qualifier distinguishes it from sibling driving/walking/transit route tools, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool is for.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The riding mode and '路径规划' imply the tool is for bicycle route queries, so the usage context is inferable. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over maps_direction_driving/walking/transit, nor does it name alternative tools or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.