Turkey Bus Routes & Prices: Real-time structured data extraction feed for Turkey Bus Routes & Prices.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "turkey_bus_routes_prices"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxResults | No | Maximum number of structured items to extract. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails. 'Real-time' and 'structured data extraction' hint at freshness and that the tool scrapes rather than queries an official API, but nothing is said about the data source, update cadence, geographic coverage, rate limits, or reliability of the extraction — all material for a scraping feed.
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?
It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency: one clause repeats the tool name and the other is a generic category label. There is no front-loaded statement of what the agent gets back, so the only sentence present does not earn 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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no statement of return shape, the definition leaves the agent guessing what 'structured items' are (route records? fare quotes?) and what fields they contain. For a data-extraction feed that is a significant gap; only the single parameter is adequately covered, by the schema itself.
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% and there is a single optional parameter (maxResults) already documented as 'Maximum number of structured items to extract.' The description adds no meaning beyond that, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies.
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 text restates the tool name verbatim ('Turkey Bus Routes & Prices') and appends only a generic label ('Real-time structured data extraction feed'). It never says what the tool actually returns — routes, schedules, fares, or an aggregation of all three — so an agent cannot distinguish it from turkey_greek_islands_ferry_schedules or turkey_domestic_flight_prices beyond the words 'bus' and 'prices' in the name.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Nothing tells an agent when this feed is the right choice versus the flight, ferry, or fuel-price siblings, nor whether it covers intercity vs. intracity routes or requires a specific city/route input.
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.