bike_pointsLondon Santander Cycle hire scheme — live pushbike and empty-dock counts at each London cycle-hire docking point (bikes available, spaces free, total capacity in additionalProperties). London public bicycle rental only. Pass an optional area filter, e.g. "Clerkenwell"; omit for all London cycle docks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Optional name/area filter, e.g. "Clerkenwell". Omit for all docks. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "search": "Clerkenwell"
+ },
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that data is live and includes bikes available, spaces free, total capacity in additionalProperties. No contradictions; adds useful behavioral 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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Key information is front-loaded: what the tool does, what data it provides, and usage guidance for the optional filter.
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 low complexity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains what is returned (bikes available, spaces free, total capacity) and context (London cycle hire). Minor miss: not mentioning the output is a list of points, but implicitly covered.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% (one optional parameter). Description adds meaning beyond schema by providing an example and clarifying that the parameter is an area filter. The example 'Clerkenwell' makes usage concrete.
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 tool provides live bike and empty-dock counts for London Santander Cycle hire scheme, specifying the resource (docking points) and verb (counts). It distinguishes from siblings by being specific to London cycle-hire.
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?
Explicitly states optional area filter usage and defaults to all docks when omitted. Provides example filter value 'Clerkenwell'. No explicit when-not or alternatives mentioned, but context is sufficient for typical use.
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.