Skip to main content
Glama

Taiwan Road Safety Data (Unofficial)

list_speed_enforcement_points

列出某縣市(或「國道」)的測速執法設置點:地址、座標、拍攝方向與速限,可用 area 再指定鄉鎮;資料來自警政署「測速執法設置點」資料集,內建離線、不連上游;資料集沒有區分固定式與移動式,也不是事故資料,不能用來判斷哪裡較危險或測速是否有效;資料集沒有連江縣的列(回空清單並說明,不代表沒有測速);少數座標明顯錯誤的列標 coordinateSuspect: true(座標原樣輸出,請勿用來定位,沒標記不代表座標正確);彰化縣、南投縣、嘉義縣、桃園市的列另併入縣資料集的「取締項目」(enforcement,原字串,座標配對不到為 null;其他縣市沒有,enforcementCoverage 標明,null 不代表沒有取締);附固定限制、免責與授權出處標示

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": {
      "city": "<city>"
    },
    "name": "list_speed_enforcement_points"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
areaNo鄉鎮名稱,須與資料集的寫法相同(例如 屏東市;查不到時 notes 會列出有列的鄉鎮);city 為「國道」時不可帶
cityYes22 縣市之一(寫法可用 list_areas 查),或「國道」(國道公路警察局負責的設置點)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are supplied, and the description carries the full burden well: it discloses offline/no-upstream operation, a known data gap (no 連江縣 rows, empty result is not evidence of absence), the coordinateSuspect flag with an explicit warning that unflagged rows are not guaranteed correct, and the merged enforcement field with its enforcementCoverage semantics and null meaning.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, and every clause carries a substantive caveat rather than filler. It is, however, one long semicolon-chained run of text that is hard to scan, so structure could be improved even though nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the sentinel behaviors (coordinateSuspect, enforcement, enforcementCoverage, empty-list notes). For a two-parameter read tool it leaves nothing an agent needs unresolved.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the requirement that area match the dataset spelling and be omitted for 「國道」. The description restates the area refinement and adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first clause names a specific verb and resource ('列出某縣市(或「國道」)的測速執法設置點') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (address, coordinates, shooting direction, speed limit). An agent can tell this is a place-listing tool for speed cameras, distinct from the accident/hotspot siblings, without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Strong negative guidance: it states the dataset does not distinguish fixed vs mobile cameras and is not accident data, so it must not be used to judge danger or enforcement effectiveness. It also explains the area refinement and when area is disallowed. It does not name a sibling to use instead for danger/effectiveness questions, which is the only gap.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources