Skip to main content
Glama

airport_train

Read-onlyIdempotent

[인천공항 대중교통] 인천공항 공항철도 (AREX) 열차 운행 정보. D-3 ~ D+3 범위.

실시간 3분 갱신. 18개 역 (서울 ↔ 인천공항T2). 일반(Comm) 모든 역 정차,
직통(Dirc) 서울↔T1/T2 무정차.

기본 동작 — date 빈값(=오늘) 이면 현재 시각(KST) 이후 출발 열차만 시간순으로
정렬해 limit 개수만 반환 ("다음 N편"). date 명시하면 그 날 처음부터 limit 개수.
18역 × 다수 열차 → D-3~D+3 전체 응답이 비대해지므로 의미 단위로 잘림.

Args:
    station: 한글역명(예: "서울","홍대입구"), 영문, 또는 3자리 코드. 빈값=전체.
    train_no: 운행번호 (예: "A2046"). 빈값=전체.
    type: "Comm"(일반) / "Dirc"(직통) / 빈값=전체.
    date: YYYY-MM-DD 또는 YYYYMMDD. 빈값=오늘.
    limit: 반환할 최대 row 수 (기본 5, 0=전체). 응답 크기 가드.
    lang: "ko"/"en".

Returns:
    {count, total_available, next_only, limit, query, items:
        [{drv_dt, train_no, direction, train_class, station, stop_type,
          plan_arrv, plan_dptr, actual_arrv, actual_dptr}]}
    total_available > count 이면 limit 늘려 더 보세요 (예: limit=20).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNo
langNoko
typeNo
limitNo
stationNo
train_noNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, etc. The description adds significant behavioral details: real-time 3-minute refresh, D-3 to D+3 range, response truncation, and the total_available hint. No contradictions.

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?

The description is well-structured with a general intro, behavior notes, arg list, and return format. It is somewhat long but efficient, with no wasted sentences. The information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the complexity (6 params, real-time, date range, multiple stations/types), the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter behavior, response structure, and truncation advice. Output schema is also provided externally.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter including formats (e.g., date as YYYY-MM-DD), defaults, and accepted values (e.g., station in Korean/English/code). This adds value beyond the schema.

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 description clearly identifies the tool as providing Incheon Airport AREX train operation information with real-time updates, date range, and station/type details. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'airport train' explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains the basic behavior (empty date vs specified, limit, etc.) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it. The sibling list provides context, but the description itself lacks guidance.

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.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool addresses a distinct mode of transit (bus, shuttle real-time, shuttle schedule, taxi, train) with clear descriptions, leaving no ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent `airport_<transport_type>` pattern, with shuttle tools further differentiated by `_next` and `_schedule` suffixes, making them predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools covering bus, shuttle (real-time and schedule), taxi, and train, the count is well-scoped for an airport transit information server.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers all major transit modes to/from and within Incheon Airport, including real-time and schedule data, with no obvious gaps.

Resources