Skip to main content
Glama

Mbta Stops

mbta_stops
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the stops and stations on an MBTA route — Boston subway T lines, commuter rail lines, bus routes, ferries. Returns stop id, name, municipality, and wheelchair accessibility, in route order. Example: mbta_stops({ route: "Red" }) or mbta_stops({ route: "CR-Worcester" })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
routeYesRoute id from mbta_routes, e.g. "Red", "Green-D", "CR-Providence", "66"
_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: +[
      +  {
      +    "route": "Red"
      +  },
      +  {
      +    "route": "CR-Providence"
      +  }
      +]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, indicating safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns stop id, name, municipality, wheelchair accessibility, and in route order. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two concise sentences plus an example line. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently adds relevant details. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and informative annotations, the description is complete. It specifies the return fields, ordering, and usage examples. Despite no output schema, the description adequately covers return values.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds examples that clarify route ID format (e.g., 'Red', 'CR-Providence'), providing practical guidance 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 specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'stops and stations on an MBTA route', enumerating transport modes (subway, commuter rail, bus, ferry). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mbta_routes and mbta_departures by focusing on stops, not routes or departures. Examples clarify usage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose and provides examples, implying appropriate use for stop listing per route. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear enough given sibling 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.