list_networksBrowse all bike-sharing networks worldwide. Returns network name, ID, city, country, and coordinates for each network.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Total number of networks returned | |
| networks | Yes | Array of bike-sharing networks |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Total number of networks returned",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "networks": {
+ "description": "Array of bike-sharing networks",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "city": {
+ "description": "City where network operates",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "country": {
+ "description": "Country where network operates",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Network identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "latitude": {
+ "description": "Network location latitude",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "longitude": {
+ "description": "Network location longitude",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Network name",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "city",
+ "country",
+ "latitude",
+ "longitude"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "count",
+ "networks"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying exactly what fields are returned (name, ID, city, country, coordinates) and the worldwide scope, going beyond the annotations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and deliverables without any fluff or repetition. It earns its place completely.
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?
For a simple, no-parameter list tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. There is no missing information needed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The baseline is 4 because there are no input parameters to explain. The description doesn't need to address parameters and focuses on the output, which is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('all bike-sharing networks worldwide'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_network, search_networks, and citybikes_networks_near by emphasizing the global, unfiltered scope.
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 'all bike-sharing networks worldwide' makes the intended use clear: when you need a comprehensive list of networks without location or search filters. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the context strongly implies this is the broad, unfiltered access point.
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.