China 12306 Train Tickets MCP

Query Train Tickets

query_train_tickets

查询中国大陆12306火车票余票信息。参数from_city出发城市/车站中文名，to_city到达城市/车站中文名，date出发日期格式YYYY-MM-DD；留空默认明天。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "from_city": "<from_city>",
      "to_city": "<to_city>"
    },
    "name": "query_train_tickets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	出发日期，格式 YYYY-MM-DD；留空默认明天
`to_city`	Yes	到达城市或车站中文名，如 "北京"、"上海虹桥"
`from_city`	Yes	出发城市或车站中文名，如 "青岛"、"北京南"

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedNov 9, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

addedInput schema / properties / date / description

Added value: +"出发日期，格式 YYYY-MM-DD；留空默认明天"

removedInput schema / properties / date / title
```
Removed value: -"Date"
```

addedInput schema / properties / from_city / description

Added value: +"出发城市或车站中文名，如 \"青岛\"、\"北京南\""

removedInput schema / properties / from_city / title
```
Removed value: -"From City"
```

addedInput schema / properties / to_city / description

Added value: +"到达城市或车站中文名，如 \"北京\"、\"上海虹桥\""

removedInput schema / properties / to_city / title
```
Removed value: -"To City"
```

removedInput schema / title

Removed value: -"query_train_ticketsArguments"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the data source (12306 real-time availability) and the date default of tomorrow, which is real context. It says nothing about rate limits, upstream outages, or whether results include seat classes, so an agent cannot anticipate failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good. But roughly half of it re-lists the three parameters already fully documented in the schema, so that text does not earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (3 flat params, output schema present), and the description covers purpose, source, and the date default, so the core is intact. It still lacks any note on result scope or failure behavior, which matters for a live external-data query with no annotations to lean on.

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 defines all three parameters, including the YYYY-MM-DD format and the default-to-tomorrow behavior. The description restates those same facts rather than adding meaning such as whether city names are matched fuzzy or whether station vs. city changes results.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb+resource pair (query 12306 train ticket remaining availability) and scope (mainland China), so an agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling search_station, leaving the boundary to be inferred.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the tool for checking ticket availability for a city pair on a date. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to search_station for resolving ambiguous station names.

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

All China 12306 Train Tickets MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.