rail_station_infoFetch details for a specific WMATA Metro station by station_code. Returns name, address, line codes, adjacent station codes, and coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| station_code | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "station_code": "A01"
+ },
+ {
+ "station_code": "C05"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Response from WMATA station info API",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds expected return fields but no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.
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 18 words, front-loaded action and clear list of returns. No extraneous information.
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?
Tool has one parameter, output schema exists, annotations cover safety. Description sufficiently explains what it does and returns. Complete for a simple lookup tool.
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 0%, but description mentions station_code and that it's a WMATA code. Schema provides examples (A01, C05), partially compensating. Description could add more format guidance.
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?
Description clearly states 'Fetch details for a specific WMATA Metro station by station_code' and lists returned fields, distinguishing it from listing tools like rail_stations.
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?
Usage is implied via 'Fetch details for a specific station', but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance compared to sibling tools like rail_stations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.