Куда можно уехать из города
search_routesСписок направлений из города с ценой «от», числом рейсов и километражем.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | Yes | Город: русское название («Москва») или слаг (moskva) | |
| limit | No |
rossbus — buses across Russia
by ru.rossbus
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the result fields (price 'from', number of departures, mileage) but says nothing about ordering, pagination, limit behavior, or error handling. For a tool without annotations, this is a limited disclosure.
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?
The description is a single, compact sentence that directly states the resource and key output fields. It is front-loaded with 'Список направлений из города' and has no filler, though it could benefit from a second sentence about usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin for an agent to fully understand return format, limit application, or when to select this tool over siblings. The listed fields partly cover output expectations, but the context around invocation and selection is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 50% (only 'from' has a description). The tool description adds no extra meaning for the 'limit' parameter and does not clarify its semantics. It implicitly ties 'from city' to the 'from' parameter but does not compensate for the undocumented limit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a clear object: 'Список направлений из города' with specific result fields (price from, number of departures, mileage). It is not a tautology and conveys what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like cheapest_destinations or get_route.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it lists general directions, which could be confused with sibling tools like cheapest_destinations or city_departures, and no exclusions or conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Several tools overlap: search_routes and cheapest_destinations both list destinations from a city with price information, and city_departures/get_route both touch schedule details. The other tools are more distinct, but the listing-style tools create some ambiguity despite helpful descriptions.
Naming Consistency3/5
Five tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (get_distance, get_route, get_station, find_transfer, search_routes), but cheapest_destinations, city_departures, and price_per_km_stats are descriptive noun phrases. The naming is readable and consistently snake_case, but the verb convention is not uniform.
Tool Count5/5
Eight tools is well-scoped for a bus travel information server. Each tool contributes a meaningful capability around routes, pricing, transfers, stations, or statistics, without feeling bloated or overly thin.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the core traveler workflow: searching routes, finding cheap options, getting detailed schedules, handling transfers, checking distances, looking up stations, and comparing price statistics. Minor gaps exist, such as no arrival-focused query or direct city-pair comparison beyond route lookup, but they are workable.