list_providersLists configured bus and coach providers with their status to identify available operators for Italian bus searches. Use only for buses, not trains.
BUS ONLY. List configured bus/coach providers and their status. Never use this tool for trains or rail; use list_train_providers instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| providers | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the modal exclusivity rule, which is really routing guidance, and says nothing about what "status" entails or any auth/config prerequisites. Adequate against the lower bar set by annotations, but no extra behavioral value.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the most important constraint ("BUS ONLY") front-loaded in capitals. Nothing could be removed without losing routing information.
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 parameters, full annotation coverage and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies nearly everything an agent needs. The only small gap is that "status" is never characterized, though the output schema plausibly covers it.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument enumeration by saying "list configured ... providers".
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List configured bus/coach providers and their status") and immediately constrains domain with "BUS ONLY". It explicitly separates itself from list_train_providers, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without reading any schema.
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?
Gives an explicit prohibition ("Never use this tool for trains or rail") and names the correct alternative (list_train_providers). Both the when and the when-not are stated with no inference required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.