Magic Lane MCP Server

Official

by magiclane

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.2.1
Disambiguation3/5
Tools generally target different aspects, but geofence_manager's interactive_map overlaps with static_map_render, and isochrone_calculator's results can be rendered by static_map_render. route_planner and round_trip both produce routes, though round_trip is a specific type. These overlaps create moderate ambiguity.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: geofence_manager (noun_noun), isochrone_calculator (noun_noun), location_search (noun_noun), reverse_geocode (verb_noun), round_trip (adj_noun), route_planner (noun_noun), static_map_render (adj_noun_noun). Mixed conventions with no discernible verb_noun or noun_verb pattern.
Tool Count4/5
8 tools is reasonable for a location services MCP server. Each tool covers a distinct domain area (geocoding, routing, geofences, etc.), and the count is not excessive or insufficient.
Completeness3/5
Covers core location operations: geocoding, reverse geocoding, routing (multi-stop, round-trip), isochrones, geofence management, and map rendering. However, lacks batch operations, elevation data, or traffic-aware routing, and the bundling of interactive map within geofence_manager is a design quirk that creates a minor gap.
Average 3.7/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
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
- Last stable release on June 11, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions interactivity (pan, zoom, click) but does not disclose read-only nature, data requirements, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand system impact.
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 extremely concise with only two sentences that front-load the main purpose and capabilities. Every word adds value, making it efficient for agent comprehension.
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 high complexity (multiple display types, nested parameters) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, rendering behavior, or how results are presented to the user.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already provides detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond listing display types. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 displays an interactive map using specific technologies (MagicLane, MapLibre GL JS) and lists supported display types. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool static_map_render, which also renders maps, causing potential ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like route_planner, isochrone_calculator, or static_map_render. The description lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
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?
Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true) and not idempotent. The description adds operational details like 'delete' but does not elaborate on behavioral nuances (e.g., what happens on failure, rate limits, or side effects). It aligns with annotations without contradiction.
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 concise: two introductory sentences followed by a clear bullet list of operations. It front-loads the core purpose and uses efficient, scannable formatting. Every sentence 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?
Given the tool's complexity (multiple operations, no output schema), the description is adequate but not exhaustive. It explains what the tool does and lists operations, but does not describe the return format or success/failure behavior. The rich input schema partially compensates.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds high-level operation names but no deeper semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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: managing geofences and performing spatial queries. It lists five specific operations (check_point, create, read, update, delete), each with a direct verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like interactive_map or route_planner, which serve 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates usage through the listed operations, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. No comparison to siblings or exclusion criteria are provided. The agent must infer from the tool's name and operation list.
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 adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as returning turn-by-turn instructions and supporting multi-stop routing. It is consistent with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, providing useful context without contradictions.
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 no wasted words: first introduces core function, second adds key features. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 omits public and lorry/truck transport modes listed in the schema, and does not explain return format in absence of output schema. While it covers basic use cases, gaps reduce completeness for a complex tool.
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 100%, so the description adds little parameter meaning beyond summarizing key capabilities (e.g., automatic waypoint resolution). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 calculates optimized routes between two or more locations for specific transport modes, and lists key outputs (turn-by-turn instructions, distance, duration, route geometry). It distinguishes from sibling tools like location_search and static_map_render by focusing on routing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like round_trip or isochrone_calculator. Does not mention when not to use it or prerequisites.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries a reduced burden. It adds the behavioral detail that the tool returns a PNG image, which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions; the description is consistent with the read-only nature.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. No redundant or extraneous information.
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 schema is rich, the description does not explicitly mention the output_format parameter or the need to match parameters with render_type. However, with full schema coverage, the description adequately covers the high-level mapping capabilities. It lacks mention of the output format details beyond PNG.
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 100%, with the input schema providing extensive explanations for each parameter. The tool description itself does not add new parameter meaning beyond summarizing the render types. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter 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 renders visual map images of routes, isochrones, round-trips, and static locations, and returns a PNG image. This verb+resource combination immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like interactive_map (interactive) or isochrone_calculator (data only).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as route_planner or round_trip, which might be more appropriate for pure calculation without rendering.
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 adds value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by detailing the types of queries supported (place names, POIs, etc.), optional category filtering, and the nature of results (coordinates, addresses, metadata). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful 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?
Two sentences front-load the core action and then provide additional detail. Every sentence is meaningful, no redundancy, and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 (6 parameters, nested objects) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main inputs and outputs. It mentions geocoding for various entity types and category filtering, but it does not explicitly mention the required parameters (text, target, reference_location) or the dependency between target and poi_categories, though these are detailed in the 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?
With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond stating 'supports geocoding of place names, POIs... with optional category filtering,' which slightly reinforces the text parameter's purpose but does not significantly enhance understanding.
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 it searches for locations by name/address to retrieve coordinates, listing supported types (places, POIs, businesses, landmarks, addresses). It specifies an output of coordinates, formatted addresses, and metadata, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like reverse_geocode, but does not explicitly differentiate from other search tools like interactive_map.
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 forward geocoding and POI search but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like reverse_geocode or geofence_manager. No when-not-to-use or alternative references are given.
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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true (read-only) and openWorldHint=true (external data). The description adds value by noting that addresses are internally converted to coordinates, which is a behavioral detail not in annotations. No contradictions.
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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains input flexibility, and ends with a use-case statement. Every sentence 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?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain output format (polygons) beyond the first sentence, nor provide usage tips for specific parameters like ranges or transport. However, the comprehensive schema descriptions partially compensate.
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 100% (all parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description mentions that the tool accepts coordinates or addresses, but this is already detailed in the schema. Thus, the description adds minimal additional 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 explicitly states that the tool generates isochrone polygons (areas reachable within a time or distance) from a starting point. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like route_planner (which provides point-to-point routes) by focusing on reachable areas.
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 mentions usefulness for driving, walking, or cycling, implying the tool is for reachability analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., route_planner for routes, geofence_manager for boundaries) or when not to use it. No exclusions or 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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating safety. The description adds the three modes and parameter requirement but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like output size, rate limits, or potential errors. Given the annotations, the description provides some context but not beyond the schema.
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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. 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 complexity (5 parameters, nested objects) and the detailed schema, the description covers the essential modes and requirements. It lacks some nuance (e.g., output description) but is sufficient for an agent with schema context. Could mention return type briefly.
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 has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is well-documented. The tool description adds high-level mode guidance but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 geographic coordinates to address information, specifying three distinct modes (single-point, area, along path). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like location_search (forward geocoding) without needing explicit comparison.
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 the required parameter condition (at least one of coordinates, insideArea, along), guiding the agent on input requirements. However, it does not contrast with similar sibling tools (e.g., when to prefer reverse_geocode over location_search), missing an opportunity for clearer differentiation.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not repeat. It adds behavior: accepts coordinates or place name, range parameter, returns geometry/distance/duration. No contradictions; 'Generate' aligns with read-only computation.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently summarizes key aspects 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 complex parameters and nested objects, the description provides a sufficient high-level summary. It mentions return values (geometry, distance, duration) despite no output schema. Could be slightly more detailed but schema covers individual parameters.
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 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds high-level context (starting point, range units) but does not provide deep semantics beyond the schema's already thorough descriptions. Appropriate for the coverage level.
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 a circular round-trip route starting and ending at same location, with specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'route'. It distinguishes from siblings like route_planner (point-to-point) and isochrone_calculator (area) by emphasizing the loop nature.
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 generating round trips but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives like route_planner for point-to-point. No exclusion or context for when other tools are better.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/magiclane/magiclane-mcp-server'

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