stop_searchSearch for stops/stations by name. Returns matches with a naptanId (the "id" field) used by the arrivals tool, plus modes, zone, and lat/lon.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| modes | No | Optional filter. Comma-separated transport modes: tube, dlr, overground, elizabeth-line, bus, tram, national-rail. | |
| query | Yes | Stop/station name to search for, e.g. "Oxford Circus". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that it returns lat/lon and links to arrivals tool. No contradictions; adds moderate context beyond 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?
Single sentence with action verb and return fields. Front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words.
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?
No output schema, but description partially compensates by listing return fields. Does not mention result limits, ordering, or error handling. Adequate for a simple search tool but could be more complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully described in schema. The description adds no new parameter information beyond restating 'by name' for query.
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 'Search for stops/stations by name' and specifies the return fields (naptanId, modes, zone, lat/lon). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning naptanId is used by the arrivals tool.
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 use when needing a naptanId for arrivals, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Lacks explicit 'when to use' and 'when not to use' guidance.
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.
Many tools have distinct purposes, but there are multiple ask_pipeworx variants and several Polymarket tools with similar functions, causing potential confusion. Most other tools are clearly differentiated, but the overlap in query and betting tools reduces clarity.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use snake_case (ai_visibility_check), others use descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt), and some are very short (arrivals). Lengths vary widely, and there is no uniform pattern.
37 tools is excessive for a coherent server; the scope is too broad, spanning transport, data lookups, prediction markets, and utilities. This suggests a lack of focus, making the server feel like a bundled collection rather than a well-scoped toolkit.
The server covers multiple domains but lacks depth. London transport tools are partial (e.g., no real-time tube positions), and domains like weather or stock quotes rely on the ask_pipeworx meta-tool rather than dedicated tools. The surface is broad but not comprehensively complete in any area.