transit-toronto_get_routesRoutes that have at least one alert in the capture, as get_alerts expects them in route.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| agency | No | Only ttc is supported | |
| 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 covers side effects, and the description adds some behavior context by specifying the returned routes are alert-related. However, it does not explain capture semantics, pagination, or other runtime behavior.
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 short and contains no filler, but it is telegraphic and relies on the reader knowing what 'capture' and 'as get_alerts expects them in route' mean.
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?
The description gives some idea of the output but is incomplete for a tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema. It does not explain how the parameters affect results, what a 'capture' is, or what the returned route data looks like.
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?
Only 1 of 4 parameters has a schema description, and the tool description does not explain as_of, limit, snapshot_id, or their roles. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the minimal agency note.
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 identifies routes as the resource and adds a useful filter ('at least one alert in the capture'), plus a relationship to get_alerts. It lacks an explicit verb, but the tool name and sibling context make the action clear.
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 phrase 'as get_alerts expects them in route' implies this tool is meant to feed route values into get_alerts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
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.