bart_station_lookupSearch BART stations by name, city, address, or 4-letter station code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Optional city filter | |
| limit | No | Maximum matches to return | |
| query | Yes | Station name, city, address fragment, or code, e.g. Embarcadero, Oakland, EMBR |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stations | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "stations": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "address": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "city": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "county": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "latitude": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "longitude": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "state": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "code",
+ "name",
+ "city",
+ "county",
+ "state",
+ "address",
+ "latitude",
+ "longitude"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "stations"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no extra behavioral details beyond the search criteria, such as matching semantics or pagination behavior. It does not contradict annotations, but it also doesn't enrich them.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no wasted words. Every phrase adds relevant information about the search scope.
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 tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and complete parameter documentation, the description is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly. It lacks only explicit guidance on when to prefer this over 'bart_stations', but that falls under usage guidelines rather than completeness.
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%, with each parameter already well-described. The description's mention of searching by name, city, etc., is largely redundant with the 'query' parameter description. It adds marginal value by grouping search dimensions but does not compensate for any schema gaps.
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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('BART stations'), and specifies the search dimensions (name, city, address, or 4-letter station code). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'bart_stations' which likely lists all stations rather than searching.
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 finding a station via search criteria, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like the 'bart_stations' sibling for listing all stations, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The intended use is inferable but not directly guided.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but bart_advisories and bart_status_summary both relate to service status, and bart_trip includes fare information alongside bart_fare. Descriptions help clarify the intended use of each, so the overlap is minor.
All tools consistently use the 'bart_' prefix followed by a descriptive noun phrase in snake_case (e.g., bart_stations, bart_fare, bart_trip). This creates a predictable and uniform naming pattern.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a transit information server, covering station lookup, departures, advisories, fares, and trip planning without unnecessary redundancy or bloat.
The tool set comprehensively covers the core BART transit needs: station discovery, real-time departures, trip planning, fare calculation, and service advisories. No obvious gaps exist for typical transit-related queries.