Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

atlas

by com.trainrouter
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

City-to-city by train

city_pair
Read-onlyIdempotent

Journey facts between two cities (European coverage): fastest and typical duration, whether direct trains run, fewest changes, operators and the guide URL — plus legendary atlas routes on that corridor. Direction-insensitive. Figures are sampled from public schedule data, not live times — treat as planning estimates. An uncovered pair returns an error with a search_routes tip.

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": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "city_pair"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesDestination city, e.g. "Paris".
fromYesOrigin city, e.g. "London". City name only, no station needed; accent-insensitive.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / from / description
      Previous value: -"Origin city, e.g. \"London\""New value: +"Origin city, e.g. \"London\". City name only, no station needed; accent-insensitive."
    • changedInput schema / properties / to / description
      Previous value: -"Destination city, e.g. \"Paris\""New value: +"Destination city, e.g. \"Paris\"."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety and idempotency, and the description adds real value on top: European-only coverage, direction-insensitivity, and the caveat that figures are sampled from public schedule data rather than live times. It also discloses the error path for uncovered pairs, which the annotations cannot express.

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?

Single dense paragraph with the core purpose front-loaded and supporting caveats (coverage, data freshness, error behavior) trailing in descending importance. The em-dash list is slightly cluttered but no sentence is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned facts and states the geographic scope and data-freshness limits, which is what an agent needs to interpret results responsibly. Minor gap: nothing about ambiguous or multi-city names, which matters given free-text city inputs.

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 'from'/'to' are already documented including the accent-insensitivity and no-station-needed notes. The description nevertheless adds a genuine semantic the schema lacks: the lookup is direction-insensitive, so the agent need not worry about argument order.

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?

Opens with a specific resource (journey facts between two cities) and enumerates exactly what it returns: fastest/typical duration, direct-train status, fewest changes, operators, guide URL, plus atlas routes on the corridor. It is clearly distinguishable from famous_routes and night_trains, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_route, the closest sibling.

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 implied rather than stated: you call it when you want corridor-level planning facts. The only routing guidance is reactive — an uncovered pair returns an error pointing to search_routes — so the agent learns the alternative only after failing. There is no proactive 'use X instead when...' for get_route or routes_in_country.

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

All atlas toolsInspect
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.

Resources