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): times, duration, transfers, best pick. GET ?from=Paris&to=Lyon (&date=&time=). Usage: Use ONLY for French train journeys. Road itineraries and city overviews are available through the xynaptic-catalog tool. Not for non-French rail networks. [price: $0.030 per call, x402/USDC]

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYesquery parameters

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / params / properties / from / description
      Previous value: -"example: \"Paris Gare de Lyon\""New value: +"required. example: \"Paris Gare de Lyon\""
    • changedInput schema / properties / params / properties / to / description
      Previous value: -"example: \"Lyon Part-Dieu\""New value: +"required. example: \"Lyon Part-Dieu\""
    • addedInput schema / properties / params / required
      Added value: +[
+  "from",
+  "to"
+]
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[]New value: +[
+  "params"
+]
  2. 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: +[]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose important traits: HTTP method and query shape ('GET ?from=...&to=...'), plus a cost and payment model ('$0.030 per call, x402/USDC'), which tells the agent an auth/payment step is involved. It stops short of stating rate limits, error behavior, or whether results are cached/live.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then usage constraints, then price – a sensible priority order with no filler sentences. It is dense with parenthetical asides and a parameter example that make it slightly harder to scan than a 5 would require.

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 correctly enumerates what comes back (times, duration, transfers, best pick), and it covers cost, payment, and routing alternatives. It is nearly complete; the only gap is that the schema's 'best' and 'journeys' fields are never clarified.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a concrete call example and reveals date/time query parameters that do not appear in the schema's property list, which is genuinely new information. It does not, however, explain the schema's opaque 'best' and 'journeys' fields, and the date/time mention creates a slight mismatch with the declared schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'full train itinerary between two French stations or cities (SNCF)' with the returned fields (times, duration, transfers, best pick) named. The 'FR / SNCF' scoping separates it cleanly from the generic travel-style siblings like flight-airport-brief.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use ('Use ONLY for French train journeys'), when-not ('Not for non-French rail networks'), and a named alternative for adjacent needs (road itineraries and city overviews via xynaptic-catalog). Nothing is left to inference.

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
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources