bart_status_summarySummarize current BART service status from advisories and real-time alert data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| types | Yes | ||
| advisories | Yes | ||
| advisoryCount | 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": {
+ "advisories": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "description": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "expires": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "posted": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "smsText": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "station": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "station",
+ "type",
+ "description",
+ "smsText",
+ "posted",
+ "expires"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "advisoryCount": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "types": {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "advisoryCount",
+ "types",
+ "advisories"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool draws from advisories and real-time alert data, which is useful context, but it does not disclose output format or other behavioral traits. Since the output schema exists, this is adequate.
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, front-loaded sentence that communicates action ('Summarize'), resource ('BART service status'), and data source without any redundant words. It is concise and well-structured.
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 (zero parameters, annotations provided, output schema present), the description is complete. It clearly explains what the tool does and where data comes from, and the structured information covers the rest, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter details, and the absence of parameters is clearly indicated by the empty input 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 'summarize' with a clear resource 'current BART service status' and identifies data sources ('advisories and real-time alert data'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bart_advisories, which likely provide raw alerts, by emphasizing the summary aspect.
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 a clear context for use: when the user needs a summarized status overview. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as directly referencing bart_advisories for detailed raw alerts. Still, the provided context is sufficient for most cases.
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.