Skip to main content
Glama

mcp.xynaptic

by io.xynaptic.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

trip-planner

Xynaptic Trip Planner FR — full train itinerary between two French stations or cities (SNCF/Navitia): departure/arrival times, duration, transfers, train modes, CO2, best journey pick. GET ?from=Paris&to=Lyon (&date=2026-09-30&time=08:00). [price: $0.030 per call, x402/USDC]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsNoquery parameters

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / body
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "JSON body for POST endpoints (e.g. insurance, ai-chat, production-risk)",
-  "type": "object"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / params / description
      Previous value: -"query parameters, e.g. {city: 'Paris', type: 'Appartement'}"New value: +"query parameters"
    • addedInput schema / properties / params / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "best": {
+    "description": "example: {\"departure\":\"30/09 08:00\",\"arrival\":\"30/09 10:32\",\"duration_min\":152,\"transfers",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "from": {
+    "description": "example: \"Paris Gare de Lyon\"",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "journeys": {
+    "description": "example: 3",
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "to": {
+    "description": "example: \"Lyon Part-Dieu\"",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses pricing ('$0.030 per call, x402/USDC'), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about auth flow, rate limits, error handling, or caching behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then returned fields, then invocation example, then price. Every clause roughly earns its place, though the description packs a lot into one run-on line.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description reasonably compensates by listing departure/arrival times, duration, transfers, modes, CO2, and best-journey pick. Combined with the noted payment model, an agent has enough to invoke it, though missing usage routing keeps it short of complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the nested params object already documents each field with examples; baseline is 3. The description adds the GET query syntax including date/time not present in the schema, which is mild extra value but also introduces an inconsistency worth noting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb+resource+scope ('full train itinerary between two French stations or cities (SNCF/Navitia)') and enumerates the returned data. An agent can distinguish it from rail-trip-brief or rail-departures without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The example GET query implies usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or when-not, and no routing to close siblings like rail-trip-brief, rail-intermodal-compare, or ticket-buy. Usage is inferable from the domain but not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All mcp.xynaptic toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources