Skip to main content
Glama

search_routes

Search route pages by origin/destination free text. Accent-, case-, synonym-, and stem-tolerant; returns canonical URL, language variants, and IATA only when published.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_routes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNo
limitNo
queryYes
languageNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses accent-, case-, synonym-, and stem-tolerance, plus the constraint that canonical URL, language variants, and IATA appear only for published routes. It doesn't cover pagination or the effect of the language parameters, but the main surprising behaviors are stated.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One sentence gets the core action upfront, with tolerance and output-availability details in a compact trailer. There is no filler and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a no-output-schema search tool, this is mostly sufficient for an agent to issue a basic query. However, the ambiguity between 'lang' and 'language' and the lack of result-limit or language-selection guidance are notable gaps in making confident calls.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only explains the required 'query' parameter as free-text origin/destination. The duplicate 'lang'/'language' parameters are left ambiguous, and 'limit' is not explained, so an agent cannot reliably choose values for these fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('route pages'), and clarifies input as origin/destination free text, which separates it from get_route or exact-route retrieval. The return-value note reinforces that this is a search behavior rather than a simple lookup.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear usage context: free-text origin/destination search, which implies when this tool should be chosen. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclude exact-route lookups, but the sibling distinction is reasonably clear.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources