openroute-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: route creation, reverse geocoding, isochrone analysis, known route discovery, forward geocoding, and POI search. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_route_from_to, get_coordinates_object, get_reachable_area, search_known_routes, search_location_coordinates, search_pois) using snake_case. The pattern is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a routing and location utility. Each tool addresses a fundamental need without unnecessary redundancy or excessive features.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core routing, geocoding, reverse geocoding, isochrones, and POI search. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of distance matrix or turn-by-turn directions, but overall it provides a solid base for location-based tasks.
Average 3.6/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on January 31, 2026
- 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

Behavior2/5
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 only states what the tool returns (list of objects) and the parameters, but omits any behavioral traits (e.g., whether it is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, rate limits, or whether the results are sorted or limited). The tool could be a safe lookup or a costly operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (4 lines) but could be better structured. It mixes the primary action with argument details and a vague return statement. The phrase 'next enclosing objects' and 'close to the given coordinates' may cause confusion (enclosing vs nearby). It is acceptable but not optimally front-loaded or clear.
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?
Despite having an output schema (unknown details), the description does not explain the structure or content of the returned objects. 'List of objects results close to the given coordinates' is vague: does it return the enclosing objects or objects near the coordinate? The term 'address tag' is not explained. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description should provide more context about what the objects represent.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds basic meaning by labeling 'lon' as longitude and 'lat' as latitude, and states they define the location. However, it does not specify expected coordinate format (e.g., decimal degrees, WGS84), valid range, or that coordinates are required. This is sufficient but not excellent.
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 returns enclosing objects with an address tag that surround the given coordinate. This is a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_location_coordinates' which likely returns coordinates for a string input. However, the phrase 'next enclosing objects' could be more precise (e.g., 'the smallest enclosing object' or 'all objects that contain the point').
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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_pois' or 'search_location_coordinates'. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or which scenario best fits this tool. An agent would have no guidance on choosing between sibling tools.
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns 'Found POIs information' and mentions parameters. It does not discuss safety, destructive potential, authentication needs, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a search tool.
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 and well-structured. It opens with a clear one-sentence purpose, then lists parameters and return value in a clean args/returns format. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.
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 has 2 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description covers the core function and parameter formats adequately. However, it lacks context about maximum bounding box size, result limit, or what constitutes a POI. With output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return structure, but additional usage context would improve completeness.
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?
The description adds meaningful detail beyond the input schema by explaining the format of 'bounding_box_coordinates' as [[min_lon, min_lat], [max_lon, max_lat]] and clarifying that 'filters_name' is an optional list of names. This compensates for the 0% schema description 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 searches for points of interest in an area. It uses a specific verb and resource combination, distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_location_coordinates' and 'search_known_routes'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself, so it misses the top score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative search tools. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings. The agent must infer usage context from the name and parameters alone.
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 must fully convey behavior. It states the return is a GPX representation but does not clarify if the route is computed on-the-fly or stored, nor any side effects, auth, or limitations. 'Create a route' might imply mutation, but likely it's a 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?
The description is concise with a clear main sentence followed by a structured docstring listing parameters. No extraneous information, and each 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?
With an output schema present, the description adequately covers all parameters and return type. It mentions optional waypoints and the GPX format. Minor gaps: no error cases or performance details, but sufficient for a route creation 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 description coverage is 0%, so the docstring compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and format (e.g., coordinate order, route type examples). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type information.
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 creates a route from coordinates to destination with optional waypoints. It uses specific verbs and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on searching or getting other data.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'search_known_routes' or 'get_reachable_area'. The description only explains parameters but does not provide context for selection.
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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list with coordinates, address, and metadata, but does not detail search behavior (e.g., fuzziness, result count), side effects, or authentication needs. The disclosure is adequate but not thorough.
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 efficient: two sentences plus structured Args/Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. No unnecessary 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?
Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema (indicated but not detailed), the description covers the return value structure. It is complete enough for a straightforward search tool, though missing usage cues.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'location' parameter ('Location string (address or place name)'), providing context beyond the schema's type-only definition.
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 action ('Search for possible coordinates of a location') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_pois or search_known_routes by focusing on coordinate retrieval from an address or place name.
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 such as get_coordinates_object or search_pois. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or use cases.
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 provided, so description must cover behavior. It explains computation and return format (GeoJSON) but does not disclose side effects, authorization, rate limits, or idempotency. It is accurate but incomplete for a fully transparent description.
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?
Docstring style with Args/Returns sections is well-structured and concise. Every sentence adds information without redundancy. Efficient use of space.
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 moderate complexity and no output schema provided, description covers all input parameters and return format (GeoJSON). Lacks error handling or performance notes but is sufficient for a computation 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 description coverage is 0%, so description compensates well. It explains coordinates format ([lon, lat]), route_type enums, range_type units, and area_range meaning (seconds/metres, comma-separated lists). Adds significant value beyond schema types.
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 the tool computes reachable area within time/distance from starting points. Verb 'computes' and resource 'reachable area' are specific. Distinguishes from sibling routing and search tools by focusing on isochrones.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like create_route_from_to or search_known_routes. The purpose is clear enough for inference, but lacks direct context or exclusions.
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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the geographic restriction (Switzerland) and the return type (description of known routes). However, it lacks details on result count, pagination, or performance implications, which would enhance transparency.
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 and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds information (purpose, geographic limitation, parameter details). No redundant or vague statements.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 required parameters, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters with format guidance, geographic scope, and return type. It is complete for an AI agent to use correctly.
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?
The description adds value beyond the input schema by specifying the coordinate order as [longitude, latitude] and listing common route_type values. Schema coverage is 0%, so this context is essential. However, it does not list all enum values (schema has more) and omits parameter descriptions for each field.
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 searches for known hiking/cycling routes near given coordinates, aiding waypoint suggestion for route creation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_pois and create_route_from_to by focusing on known trails.
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 explains when to use (for finding known trails to suggest waypoints) and includes a key limitation (only works in Switzerland via Swiss Geo API). It does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives, but the limitation provides practical guidance.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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