railway_station_liveBoardUse this tool for station arrivals/departures board by station code. Calls /trains/stationLive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| station_code | Yes | Station code (e.g., MMCT). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| trains | Yes | List of train records from the upstream API. | |
| message | No | ||
| time_stamp | No | ||
| station_code | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the endpoint as a behavioral detail, but doesn't discuss return format, pagination, or data freshness. This is acceptable given the security annotations, but could add more context.
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?
Two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and usage, the second names the endpoint. No fluff or redundant information.
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?
With only one parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema present, the description fully covers the tool's operation. It states what it does and the specific endpoint, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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% (station_code with example and length constraints). The description's repetition of 'station code' adds no new meaning, so the schema carries the semantic burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 it's for station arrivals/departures board by station code, and explicitly names the endpoint `/trains/stationLive`. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific trains, routes, or PNR status.
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?
It tells the agent to use this tool when needing a station board by code, providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives to avoid, but the purpose is specific enough to differentiate from siblings like `railway_train_liveStatus` (for a train) without extra guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.