get_trip_detailsGet 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds that the tool returns intermediate stops, platforms, and occupancy, which goes beyond the annotations' safety profile. It also highlights the dependence on a prior search_connections call, providing useful behavioral 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then usage. No unnecessary words or repetition; every sentence earns its place.
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 one parameter fully described, rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description covering key returned data, the tool is well-specified for an agent to select and invoke correctly. No output schema is needed for this simple detail retrieval.
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 schema already fully describes trip_id, and the description only restates that it comes from search_connections, adding no new meaning beyond the schema's 100% coverage. 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 the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific train connection, listing key data (intermediate stops, platforms, occupancy). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on trip details rather than search, pricing, or ticket linking.
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 explicitly instructs to use a trip ID from search_connections results, providing workflow context. It doesn't name alternatives but clearly implies it follows search_connections, offering clear usage context without explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: station lookup, connection search, pagination, pricing, ticket link, and trip details. The boundaries are clear, and descriptions explicitly reference how tools relate to each other.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (search_*, get_*) in lowercase with underscores. The pattern is uniform across the entire set.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its transportation purpose. Each tool covers a necessary step in the user journey without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the full workflow: find stations, search connections, paginate results, get detailed trip info, retrieve prices, and obtain a purchase link. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.