bus_incidentsFetch current WMATA bus service alerts and incidents. Returns incident description, affected route IDs, date/time updated, and incident type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Response from WMATA bus incidents API",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the returned data structure (incident description, route IDs, update time, incident type), providing context beyond the 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?
One sentence with essential information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately lists what is returned. 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?
Given no parameters, comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), and an output schema, the description adequately captures the tool's behavior and return values. No gaps remain.
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 tool has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning; baseline is 4.
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 specifies the verb 'fetch', the resource 'WMATA bus service alerts and incidents', and lists returned fields (incident description, affected route IDs, date/time updated, incident type). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rail_incidents or bus_predictions.
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 usage for fetching current alerts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rail_incidents for rail alerts). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, which is acceptable given the tool has no parameters and is read-only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.