geoagentic

eu-transit-router

EU-wide public intercity transit router. Accepts PLACE NAMES (not coordinates). Returns multi-leg itineraries via Transitous.

CRITICAL FOR AGENTS:

This tool handles geocoding internally. Do NOT pre-geocode or look up coordinates.
Do NOT call this tool multiple times with different spellings. Call it ONCE.
If a location isn't found, present the error message and STOP.

TEMPORAL HANDLING: This tool returns live real-time schedules only (no date parameter). If user asks for 'tomorrow' or a future date, pass it as --requested-date. The tool will add an explanatory note about schedule patterns.

EXAMPLES:

--from "Ljubljana, Slovenia" --to "Maribor, Slovenia"
--from "Podbrdo" --to "Nova Gorica" --requested-date "2026-06-05" --limit 3
--from "Bled" --to "Trieste, Italy" --modes "BUS WALK"

FAILURE MODES (present directly to user, do not retry):

LOCATION_NOT_FOUND → Check spelling
NO_ROUTES_FOUND → Try different modes or check locations are in Europe
ROUTING_FAILURE → Upstream API error, try again later

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Number of alternative itineraries to return. Range: 1-5.
`modes`	No	Space-separated transport modes. Allowed: TRANSIT WALK BUS RAIL TRAM SUBWAY FERRY BICYCLE CAR. Always include WALK with TRANSIT.	TRANSIT WALK
`to_place`	Yes	Destination place name. Example: 'Nova Gorica, Slovenia'
`from_place`	Yes	Origin place name. Example: 'Podbrdo, Slovenia' or 'Ljubljana'
`requested_date`	No	User's requested date in YYYY-MM-DD format (optional). Used only to generate a note about real-time vs. future schedules.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses geocoding internally, live real-time schedules, and failure modes. Could be more explicit about output format, but covers key behavioral traits.

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?

Well-structured with sections for critical instructions, temporal handling, examples, and failure modes. Slightly verbose but every section adds value for an agent.

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?

Comprehensive given no output schema and 5 parameters. Covers purpose, usage, parameters, failure modes, and temporal handling. Examples illustrate all parameter combinations.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds functional context: place names (not coordinates), requested-date usage, modes allowed with WALK requirement, and limit range. Elevates above baseline.

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 is an 'EU-wide public intercity transit router' accepting place names and returning multi-leg itineraries. It distinguishes from siblings like geo-route by focusing on public transit and handling geocoding internally.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use instructions: do not pre-geocode, call once, present errors, and handle temporal requests with requested-date. Failure modes and examples provide clear guidance on usage vs alternatives.

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

All geoagentic tools Inspect

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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (geocoding vs routing vs POI search). However, the multiple Slovenian cadastral tools (simple, deep, wfs-expert) overlap in functionality, potentially confusing an agent on which to use for a given task.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tools within subgroups like 'geo-*' follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, and 'slovenia-*' tools use a noun_adjective pattern. However, across the whole set there is no unified naming convention, mixing prefixes like 'eu-', 'events-', 'hikes-', and 'hostel-'.

Tool Count4/5

With 16 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal range (3-15) but still well-scoped. Each tool addresses a distinct geographic need, although the breadth across many domains (transit, cadastre, weather, hostels) feels a bit broad.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core geographic operations (geocoding, routing, POI, isochrones, reverse geocoding) plus specialized Slovenian data and travel amenities. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of general worldwide POI beyond OSM or event discovery beyond Luma, but overall it is comprehensive for its domain.

Resources

Need Help?