sbb-mcp
Server Details
Independent hosted SBB/CFF/FFS MCP service for Swiss train schedules, prices, and ticket links by SwissTrip.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.1/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: station search, connection search, pagination, pricing, purchase link, and trip details. There is no ambiguity or overlap between them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase and underscores (e.g., search_stations, get_prices). No mixing of conventions.
Six tools is well-scoped for a train information and ticket purchase server. Each tool earns its place, covering search, details, pricing, and purchase without excess.
The tool set covers the full user workflow: finding stations, searching connections, exploring schedules (pagination), getting trip details, checking prices, and obtaining a purchase link. No obvious gaps.
Available Tools
6 toolsget_more_connectionsGet More ConnectionsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Load earlier or later train connections for a previous search. Use the collection ID from search_connections results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| direction | Yes | "next" for later trains, "previous" for earlier trains | |
| collection_id | Yes | Collection ID from search_connections results |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the pagination direction (earlier/later) but no additional behavioral context beyond annotations.
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 with no unnecessary words, front-loading the purpose and usage instruction.
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?
For a simple read-only pagination tool with full annotations, the description is mostly complete. It lacks details about output format, but the tool's simplicity and annotations compensate.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema. The description only reiterates the use of collection_id without adding new semantic details.
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 loads earlier or later train connections for a previous search, using a collection ID. It is specific about the verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_connections.
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?
The description explicitly instructs to use the collection ID from search_connections results, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_pricesGet PricesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get ticket prices in CHF for one or more train connections. Supports Half-Fare card (Halbtax) and GA travelcard discounts. Up to 10 trip_ids per call — batch them in a single request rather than calling once per connection. Use trip_ids from a recent search_connections result; do not invent IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trip_ids | Yes | Trip IDs from search_connections results | |
| traveler_type | No | Traveler type | ADULT |
| reduction_card | No | Swiss reduction card: HALF_FARE (Halbtax), GA (General Abonnement), or NONE | HALF_FARE |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains discount support (Half-Fare, GA) and family pricing via traveler_names. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the additional info is valuable but not critical.
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?
Three sentences, none redundant. Front-loaded with main action, then specific features. Every sentence adds value without waste.
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?
Given no output schema, description covers primary use case and special case (family pricing). Lacks mention of error situations or return format, but annotations (idempotent, readonly) reduce the need for further detail. Completeness is strong but not perfect.
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 coverage is 100% (all parameters described), but description adds meaning: explains that traveler_names triggers family pricing, requires SWISSTRIP_TOKEN, and that reduction_card applies when no traveler_names given. This enhances understanding beyond schema definitions.
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?
Description clearly states 'Get ticket prices for one or more train connections', with specific verb and resource. Differentiates from siblings like search_connections (connections) and get_trip_details (details), as price retrieval is a distinct function.
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?
Description implies usage after obtaining trip IDs from search_connections, and specifies when to use traveler_names (requires SwissTrip token). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_ticket_linkGet Ticket LinkARead-onlyInspect
Get a direct purchase link to buy a train ticket on SBB.ch. Only call this when the user wants to buy a specific ticket. On mobile with SBB app installed, opens directly in the app with Halbtax/GA applied automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Travel date YYYY-MM-DD | |
| time | Yes | Departure time HH:MM | |
| to_id | Yes | Destination station ID (e.g. "8507000") | |
| from_id | Yes | Origin station ID (e.g. "8503000") | |
| to_name | Yes | Destination station name (e.g. "Bern") | |
| trip_id | Yes | Trip ID to purchase | |
| from_name | Yes | Origin station name (e.g. "Zürich HB") | |
| traveler_type | No | Traveler type | ADULT |
| reduction_card | No | Swiss reduction card: HALF_FARE (Halbtax), GA (General Abonnement), or NONE | HALF_FARE |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds behavioral details beyond annotations: mobile app opens directly with Halbtax/GA applied automatically. Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) are consistent, enriching understanding.
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?
Three sentences, each valuable and front-loaded with purpose. Concise with zero waste.
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?
Given 10 parameters (7 required) and no output schema, the description covers when to call and key behaviors. Lacks details on link format or trip_id validation, but sufficient with sibling context.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds meaning for traveler_names in SwissTrip context and mentions automatic reduction cards on mobile, but does not detail all parameters significantly.
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 'Get a direct purchase link to buy a train ticket on SBB.ch,' using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_prices and get_trip_details by focusing on purchase links.
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?
Explicitly says 'Only call this when the user wants to buy a specific ticket,' and provides conditions for traveler_names with SwissTrip. Context is clear, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_trip_detailsGet Trip DetailsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get detailed information about a specific train connection including all intermediate stops, platforms, and occupancy. Use a trip ID from search_connections results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trip_id | Yes | Trip ID from search_connections results |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context such as included fields (intermediate stops, platforms, occupancy) without contradicting annotations.
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 sentences, no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the dependency on search_connections is clearly stated.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool returns and its prerequisite. No gaps.
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?
The input schema describes the single trip_id parameter with the same wording as the description, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema.
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 the tool retrieves detailed info about a specific train connection, listing included data (intermediate stops, platforms, occupancy). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_connections and get_more_connections by specifying a unique resource.
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?
The description explicitly says to use a trip ID from search_connections results, providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but is sufficient for standard usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_connectionsSearch ConnectionsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Find train connections between two Swiss stations. Accepts station names directly (e.g. "Zürich HB", "Bern") or UIC IDs — name resolution happens internally. Returns live schedules with departure/arrival times, duration, transfers, and trip IDs for downstream pricing/details/ticket calls. Live data: includes delays and cancellations for trains departing within 30 min.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Destination station name or ID (e.g. "Bern" or "8507000") | |
| date | No | Travel date in YYYY-MM-DD format (default: today) | |
| from | Yes | Origin station name or ID (e.g. "Zurich HB" or "8503000") | |
| time | No | Time in HH:MM (Europe/Zurich local time, 24h). By default treated as DEPARTURE time. Default: now. | |
| arrival_time | No | Defaults to false (treat `time` as departure). Only set true when the user EXPLICITLY says they want to ARRIVE by a specific time ("I need to be in Bern by 9am", "arriving at 14:00"). For loose phrases like "around 9am", "morning", or "tomorrow at 9", leave this false — those mean departure time. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so baseline is lower. Description adds return field details and trip IDs for pricing, but no additional behavioral traits like auth or rate limits.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with main action and result.
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?
Good coverage of purpose and return values. Could mention that get_more_connections exists for pagination, but overall sufficient given complexity.
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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. Description adds overall context (Swiss stations) but does not add significant meaning beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Find' and resource 'train connections between two Swiss stations', and specifies return fields. Distinguishes from siblings like search_stations and get_prices.
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?
Implies usage by describing functionality, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_more_connections or get_trip_details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_stationsSearch StationsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search for Swiss train stations, addresses, or points of interest by name. Returns UIC station IDs (e.g. "8503000" for Zürich HB) used by the other tools. Note: search_connections accepts station names directly, so this tool is only needed when the user explicitly asks for station info or when you need disambiguation between multiple matches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results | |
| query | Yes | Station name to search for (e.g. "Zurich", "Bern", "Interlaken") |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool's read-only, idempotent nature is clear. The description adds that it returns station IDs, which is useful context but does not cover potential behaviors like case sensitivity, sorting, or result diversity.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the action and key outcome. Every word is meaningful and contributes to understanding.
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?
Despite the lack of an output schema, the description explains the return value (station IDs) and their purpose. It scopes the search appropriately to Swiss locations. Could mention ordering or result diversity, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple search tool.
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%, with the query parameter already having examples and the limit parameter clearly described. The description adds context about what can be searched (stations, addresses, POI) but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
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 the tool searches for Swiss train stations, addresses, or points of interest by name, and explicitly mentions that it returns station IDs needed for other tools. This verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_connections and get_more_connections.
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?
The description explains the primary use case (searching and obtaining station IDs for other tools) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the context of sibling tool names like search_connections provides implicit differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!