bus_route_detailsFetch stop sequence and path details for a WMATA bus route by route_id and optional date. Returns direction names, stop names/IDs, and geo coordinates for the route shape.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| route_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "route_id": "42"
+ },
+ {
+ "date": "2024-01-15",
+ "route_id": "42"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Response from WMATA bus route details API",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying that results include direction names, stop names/IDs, and geo coordinates, which is not in the schema. No contradictions.
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 efficiently worded sentences with no filler. First sentence states purpose and parameters, second lists output content. Every piece earns its place.
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 simple fetch operation with one required parameter and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns (directions, stops, coordinates). No missing context.
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 0%, but the description mentions both parameters (route_id and date) and clarifies that date is optional. It could provide more details like date format or route_id format, but it adds enough context beyond the raw schema.
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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'stop sequence and path details for a WMATA bus route'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like bus_routes and bus_stops by focusing on detailed route info.
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 route details by route_id and optional date, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like bus_routes or bus_stops are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.