search_stationsSearch for Swiss public transport stations (train, bus, tram) by name query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Station name to search for (e.g., "Zurich HB", "Bern", "Geneva"). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of stations returned | |
| stations | Yes | List of matching stations |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "Zurich HB"
+ },
+ {
+ "query": "Bern"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of stations returned",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "stations": {
+ "description": "List of matching stations",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "coordinate": {
+ "description": "Geographic coordinates",
+ "properties": {
+ "x": {
+ "description": "X coordinate (longitude)",
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "y": {
+ "description": "Y coordinate (latitude)",
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Station identifier",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Station name",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "count",
+ "stations"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesRemoved value: -[
- {
- "query": "Zurich HB"
- },
- {
- "query": "Bern"
- }
-]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "count": {
- "description": "Number of stations returned",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "stations": {
- "description": "List of matching stations",
- "items": {
- "properties": {
- "coordinate": {
- "description": "Geographic coordinates",
- "properties": {
- "x": {
- "description": "X coordinate (longitude)",
- "type": [
- "number",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "y": {
- "description": "Y coordinate (latitude)",
- "type": [
- "number",
- "null"
- ]
- }
- },
- "type": [
- "object",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "id": {
- "description": "Station identifier",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "name": {
- "description": "Station name",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "count",
- "stations"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of stations returned",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "stations": {
+ "description": "List of matching stations",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "coordinate": {
+ "description": "Geographic coordinates",
+ "properties": {
+ "x": {
+ "description": "X coordinate (longitude)",
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "y": {
+ "description": "Y coordinate (latitude)",
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Station identifier",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Station name",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "count",
+ "stations"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "Zurich HB"
+ },
+ {
+ "query": "Bern"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the scope of Swiss public transport and station types, but does not disclose any additional behavioral nuances such as fuzzy matching, pagination, or result ordering. With annotations covering safety, the description provides modest added context.
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 with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the action, resource, and scope.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete. It provides enough information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional explanation.
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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter, including examples. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'Swiss public transport stations', and specifies the types (train, bus, tram). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_connections and get_stationboard, which operate on station data rather than discover stations by name.
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 description implies the tool is for finding stations by name, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. The sibling tools for connections and stationboards suggest it's a prerequisite, but that connection is not made explicit in the description.
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.
Most tools have distinct names and purposes, but the ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) creates ambiguity as they serve overlapping needs with slight variations. Additionally, the transport tools (get_connections, get_stationboard, search_stations) are clearly distinct from the rest, but the overall set mixes domains, making it harder for an agent to know which tool to pick.
All tool names use snake_case, but there is no consistent pattern: some start with verbs (get_, list_, search_, remember, forget), some with nouns (entity_profile, recent_changes, recent_alerts), and others with adjectives (ai_visibility_check, deep_research). This inconsistency, while not chaotic, makes the set less predictable.
The server name 'swisstransport' implies a narrow Swiss transport focus, but with 34 tools, only 3 are transport-related. The count is vastly inappropriate for the suggested purpose. Even considering the actual broad domain (data query, prediction markets, memory), 34 tools is on the high side and likely overwhelming for any single server.
Inferring the domain from the tool descriptions, the set covers a wide range of capabilities: data query (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), entity comparison (compare_entities), prediction markets (polymarket_*), memory (remember/recall), subscriptions, and more. There are few obvious gaps given the scope; for example, broader financial data is accessible through ask_pipeworx. The transport subset is minimal but present.