komoot-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

build_combined_route

Combines gravel segments from saved Komoot tours into a custom route, connects them with a cycling router, and saves the result as a GPX file for loops or point-to-point rides.

Instructions

Build a custom gravel route by combining the best segments from multiple saved tours.

Selects gravel segments from saved tours within a corridor between start and end, ordered by forward progress. Connects them via OSRM cycling router. Every km follows either a saved-tour path or a short OSRM connector.

For loops: omit end_lat/end_lon. For point-to-point: provide both.

Uses a disk cache for parsed segments: only fetches new tours from the API. Set force_refresh=True to re-fetch all tour data.

Args: tour_ids: List of Komoot tour IDs to extract segments from. start_lat: Starting point latitude. start_lon: Starting point longitude. distance_km: Target route distance in km (default 50). min_gravel_pct: Minimum gravel percentage target (default 60). route_name: Name for the combined route. save_path: File path to save GPX. Defaults to $KOMOOT_MCP_ROUTES_DIR/.gpx (or ~/komoot-mcp-routes/ when the variable is not set). use_saved_highlights: If True, fetch saved highlights and use as waypoint attractors (default True). force_refresh: If True, ignore cache and re-fetch all tour data from Komoot API (default False). end_lat: End point latitude (for point-to-point routes). Omit for loops. end_lon: End point longitude (for point-to-point routes). Omit for loops.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`end_lat`	No
`end_lon`	No
`tour_ids`	Yes
`save_path`	No
`start_lat`	Yes
`start_lon`	Yes
`route_name`	No	Gravel-AI route
`distance_km`	No
`force_refresh`	No
`min_gravel_pct`	No
`use_saved_highlights`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the disk cache ('only fetches new tours from the API'), the cache-busting flag, the save location and its default resolution, and the composition guarantee of saved paths plus OSRM connectors. It stops short of auth requirements, rate limits, runtime cost, and whether an existing file at save_path is overwritten.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then mechanism, then mode selection, then args — a sensible hierarchy with no filler sentences. Minor redundancy: the loop/point-to-point rule appears both in prose and again in the end_lat/end_lon entries.

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 an 11-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, mode branching, caching, and every argument, so an agent can invoke it correctly. Remaining gaps are operational: prerequisite credentials/auth, failure behavior on bad tour_ids, and expected runtime are unaddressed.

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, and it does: all 11 parameters are documented in the Args block with semantics and defaults that match the schema (distance_km=50, min_gravel_pct=60, use_saved_highlights=True, force_refresh=False). It also links two params ('route_name' feeds the 'save_path' default) and clarifies the null-default end_lat/end_lon.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Build a custom gravel route by combining segments from saved tours') and immediately explains the mechanism: corridor selection, progress ordering, OSRM connectors. None of the sibling tools build routes, and the description makes the output object (a GPX combined route) unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance for the loop vs point-to-point modes ('omit end_lat/end_lon' vs 'provide both'), which is the main branching decision an agent must make. It also explains when to set force_refresh. It does not, however, route the agent against alternatives (e.g., when to prefer download_tour_gpx or get_tour_segments instead).

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

Deploy Server