sourcesList all data sources with license, attribution and availability.
Takes no arguments. Shows which upstream sources InfraNode bundles and whether each is currently active. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds that it 'shows which upstream sources InfraNode bundles and whether each is currently active,' which gives useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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 three short sentences with no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: first states what is listed, second confirms no arguments, third adds behavioral insight.
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 0 parameters, rich annotations, and presence of output schema (which will describe return structure), the description covers all essential behavioral aspects: data listed, argument needs, purpose. Complete for this simple 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?
Input schema has 0 parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description's claim 'takes no arguments' is basic but sufficient confirmation for the agent.
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 lists data sources and specifies the included attributes (license, attribution, availability). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'air_quality' or 'weather' which likely access specific data, not the source catalog.
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 says 'takes no arguments,' which sets boundaries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings, e.g., to discover available datasets before querying specific ones. The 'read-only' note subtly implies safe usage.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is potential confusion between 'get_city_resource' and specific resource accessors like 'weather', 'air_quality', 'transit_departures', 'station_board_arrivals', and 'station_board_departures'. The descriptions do clarify that some specific tools exist for convenience or source-specific details, but the boundary isn't always sharp. Also, 'compare' could overlap with using 'get_city_resource' repeatedly. An agent might hesitate between using the generic resource accessor and the named tool.
The naming convention is mostly consistent: verbs like 'get', 'list', 'compare', and 'pois' (abbreviation) are used. The pattern is generally 'verb_noun' (e.g., 'get_city', 'list_cities', 'station_board_arrivals'). Minor deviations include 'pois' being an acronym rather than a full verb phrase, and 'air_quality' vs 'weather' implying a noun rather than an action. But overall it's predictable and readable.
12 tools is a well-scoped count for a city data platform. The function set covers discovery (list_cities, sources), overview (get_city_overview), base data (get_city), specific data types (weather, air_quality, transit_departures, station_board_*, pois), a generic accessor (get_city_resource), and a comparison tool (compare). Each tool feels necessary and the set is not overwhelming.
The tool surface is quite comprehensive for a read-only city information server. It provides discovery (list_cities, get_city_overview), base data, and access to 81 data types via get_city_resource. The named tools cover the most common queries (weather, air quality, transit). A minor gap is the lack of a tool to aggregate or search across cities (though 'compare' helps). Editing or write operations are not expected here, but for read-only, it's nearly complete.