Skip to main content
Glama

Mbta Routes

mbta_routes
Read-onlyIdempotent

List MBTA routes for the Boston subway T, commuter rail, bus, and ferry — route ids, names, and the destination each direction heads toward. type: 0-1 subway/light rail (Red, Orange, Blue, Green, Mattapan), 2 commuter rail, 3 bus (includes Silver Line), 4 ferry. Default returns subway + commuter rail + ferry; pass type 3 for buses. Example: mbta_routes({ type: "2" })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoRoute type filter, comma-separable: "0,1" subway, "2" commuter rail, "3" bus, "4" ferry (default "0,1,2,4")
_apiKeyNoOptional: free MBTA v3 API key from api-v3.mbta.com for higher rate limits

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  {
      +    "type": "2"
      +  },
      +  {
      +    "type": "0,1"
      +  }
      +]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of type codes and default behavior, which are behavioral traits beyond the annotation flags.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences and an example, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Very efficient.

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 no output schema, the description explains return fields (route ids, names, destinations). It covers the primary parameter type thoroughly and mentions defaults. It is complete for the tool's purpose.

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?

The description adds significant meaning to the type parameter by mapping numeric codes to transportation modes and giving an example. Although schema covers 100%, the description enriches understanding with practical usage hints.

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 states the tool lists MBTA routes for various modes with specific outputs (ids, names, destinations). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mbta_stops and mbta_departures by focusing on routes.

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?

The description explains the default filter and how to include buses via type parameter. It provides an example call. Though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use, the context with sibling tools implies when to use this over other route-related tools.

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.