Skip to main content
Glama

mapnetwork-mcp

by io.github.toruproject

generate_route_map

Compute a walking/driving route between two places and generate a map with it overlaid. Both endpoints are pinned automatically — do not also call generate_markers_map for them. Example: from='Tokyo Station', to='Tokyo Tower', mode='walking'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesRoute end. Place name to geocode.
fromYesRoute start. Place name to geocode.
modeNo'walking' (default) or 'driving'.
nameNoOptional: display name for the map. If omitted, the server derives one automatically from place/route.
placeNoOptional: place to center the map on. If omitted, the center is computed automatically from the route.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / name
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: display name for the map. If omitted, the server derives one automatically from place/route.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and adds meaningful behavioral context: it computes and overlays a route, pins both endpoints automatically, and warns against redundant marker generation. It does not mention return format or side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.

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, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second gives a critical usage warning with behavior, and the third shows a concrete example. Information is front-loaded and there is no wasted wording.

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?

The description covers the primary function, automatic pinning, a sibling exclusion, and an example. Since there is no output schema, it could optionally clarify the exact return format, but for a map-generation tool the essentials are present and an agent can call it correctly.

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 already documents all five parameters. The description adds a useful example with concrete values but does not deepen parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Compute a walking/driving route between two places and generate a map with it overlaid.' It also differentiates from the generate_markers_map sibling by explicitly noting that endpoints are pinned automatically, so an agent can tell this tool apart without examining the schema.

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 gives an explicit exclusion: 'do not also call generate_markers_map for them,' and provides a concrete example with from/to/mode. However, it does not directly mention the generate_map sibling or explain when to prefer this tool over it, so the guidance is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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

All mapnetwork-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: single-place map, multi-marker map, and route map. The descriptions explicitly separate them, and the route tool even warns against double-pinning endpoints with the markers tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the same generate_X_map pattern, making the relationship between tools predictable. The naming clearly indicates the output type and the variation in each tool.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is a tight, well-scoped set for a map generation server. Each tool covers a distinct map use case without redundancy or unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core map-generation workflows: a single location, multiple markers, and a route between two points. Minor advanced options like custom styles or combined routes-plus-markers are not present, but the essential functionality is complete.

Resources