get_trip_detailsGet detailed information about a specific train connection including all intermediate stops, platforms, and occupancy. Use a trip ID from search_connections results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trip_id | Yes | Trip ID from search_connections results |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds context about the kind of details returned (stops, platforms, occupancy) but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. This meets the baseline for annotation-covered tools.
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?
Two sentences capture the purpose and usage context with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and the second sentence provides essential guidance on obtaining the trip ID. It is optimally concise.
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 the low complexity (single parameter), rich annotations, and a description that lists the type of information returned, the description is complete for an agent to use correctly. It lacks an output schema but the description gives enough detail about what to expect. There is no need for additional explanation of return values because the description already enumerates examples.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema describes trip_id as 'Trip ID from search_connections results'. The description reinforces this by instructing to use a trip ID from search_connections, adding a small amount of shared context. Since the schema already carries the semantic load, this is the appropriate baseline.
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's function: 'Get detailed information about a specific train connection' with specific examples (intermediate stops, platforms, occupancy). It uses a strong verb and specifies the resource, and the mention of 'trip ID from search_connections' differentiates it from sibling tools by tying it to a prior search step.
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 clear context: this should be used after obtaining a trip ID from search_connections. It tells the agent when to use it, but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, so it doesn't meet the full 'when/when-not/alternatives' standard.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: station search, connection search, pagination of results, trip details, pricing, and ticket purchase. There is no overlap that would confuse an agent; the only similar pair (search_connections and get_more_connections) is explicitly separated as initial search vs. loading more results.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (search_* for discovery, get_* for retrieval). The naming style is uniform and predictable, with no mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose: searching stations, planning connections, viewing details, checking prices, and buying tickets. Each tool earns its place, and the count is neither too thin nor bloated.
The tool set covers the complete user journey from station lookup and connection search to trip details, pricing, and direct ticket purchase. The workflow has no dead ends; after a search, trip IDs link seamlessly to downstream tools like get_prices and get_ticket_link.