transit-toronto_get_alertsCurrent TTC service alerts (subway, streetcar, bus, elevators) from the last capture.
route narrows to one route number or line, as listed by get_routes. The envelope says whether the capture is fresh or the TTC feed was unavailable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| route | No | ||
| agency | No | Only ttc is supported | |
| cursor | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| snapshot_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates no side effects, and the description adds useful behavioral context about the envelope indicating whether the capture is fresh or the feed was unavailable. No contradictions are present.
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 concise, uses two short paragraphs, and avoids unnecessary detail. All information is relevant and presented clearly without redundancy.
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 seven optional parameters, no output schema, and only one parameter described in the schema, the description leaves significant gaps. It mentions the envelope but does not describe the overall response shape, pagination via cursor, field selection, or snapshot filtering, making it incomplete for fully informed usage.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 14%, with only 'agency' described as 'Only ttc is supported'. The description elaborates on 'route' but leaves as_of, limit, cursor, fields, and snapshot_id unexplained. Given the low schema coverage, the description does not sufficiently compensate.
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 returns current TTC service alerts for subway, streetcar, bus, and elevators from the last capture. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like transit-toronto_get_routes by focusing on alerts rather than route listings.
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 provides some guidance on the 'route' parameter and mentions the envelope's freshness indicator, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transit-toronto_get_routes or transit-toronto_list_agencies. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.
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.
Every tool has a unique purpose, and the descriptions are detailed enough to clearly distinguish between search, list, get, and specific operations across domains. No two tools overlap in function.
Domain tools follow a consistent '<domain>_<verb>_<noun>' pattern, but gateway-level tools like 'call_tool', 'find_capability', 'inspect_tool', 'search_services', and 'status' lack the prefix, introducing a minor inconsistency. Overall still readable and predictable.
With 35 tools, the count exceeds the typical 3–15 range, but this is a gateway aggregating multiple distinct domains (holidays, laws, opendata, recalls, etc.), making the larger set justified. The count feels appropriate for the server's purpose.
Each domain offers a full set of operations: search, list, get, and domain-specific actions (like count_business_days or get_document_changes). Gateway meta-tools cover discovery, inspection, and invocation, leaving no obvious gaps.