Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
italian-bus-search

italian-bus-search

by Alexxanddr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Search Italian bus locations

search_locations
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find bus and coach location IDs and exact names across Italian providers to reuse in searches; use only for bus stops, not train stations.

Instructions

BUS ONLY. Find bus/coach location IDs and exact names. Never use for train stations; use search_train_locations instead. For an aggregate bus search, reuse exact names shared across providers.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYesPartial city, stop, or location name
offsetNoResult offset; add limit while truncated is true
providerNoProvider ID; omit to search every provider

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totalYes
errorsYes
locationsYes
truncatedYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.6
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "description": "Result offset; add limit while truncated is true",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / errors / items / properties / code / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "INVALID_INPUT",
-  "UNKNOWN_LOCATION",
-  "NO_JOURNEYS",
-  "PROVIDER_UNAVAILABLE",
-  "INCOMPATIBLE_RESPONSE",
-  "RATE_LIMITED",
-  "AMBIGUOUS_LOCATION",
-  "COVERAGE_UNAVAILABLE",
-  "QUOTE_UNAVAILABLE",
-  "LIVE_STATUS_UNAVAILABLE",
-  "TRAIN_NOT_FOUND"
-]New value: +[
+  "SEARCH_EXPIRED",
+  "SEARCH_TOO_LARGE",
+  "INVALID_INPUT",
+  "UNKNOWN_LOCATION",
+  "NO_JOURNEYS",
+  "PROVIDER_UNAVAILABLE",
+  "INCOMPATIBLE_RESPONSE",
+  "RATE_LIMITED",
+  "AMBIGUOUS_LOCATION",
+  "COVERAGE_UNAVAILABLE",
+  "QUOTE_UNAVAILABLE",
+  "LIVE_STATUS_UNAVAILABLE",
+  "TRAIN_NOT_FOUND"
+]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / default
      Previous value: -10New value: +50
    • changedOutput schema / properties / errors / items / properties / code / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "INVALID_INPUT",
-  "UNKNOWN_LOCATION",
-  "NO_JOURNEYS",
-  "PROVIDER_UNAVAILABLE",
-  "INCOMPATIBLE_RESPONSE",
-  "RATE_LIMITED"
-]New value: +[
+  "INVALID_INPUT",
+  "UNKNOWN_LOCATION",
+  "NO_JOURNEYS",
+  "PROVIDER_UNAVAILABLE",
+  "INCOMPATIBLE_RESPONSE",
+  "RATE_LIMITED",
+  "AMBIGUOUS_LOCATION",
+  "COVERAGE_UNAVAILABLE",
+  "QUOTE_UNAVAILABLE",
+  "LIVE_STATUS_UNAVAILABLE",
+  "TRAIN_NOT_FOUND"
+]
  3. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description's real contribution is the hard domain boundary (bus only) and the cross-provider name-matching tip. It says nothing, however, about result volume, truncation behavior, or how provider scoping affects results — details an open-world search tool would benefit from.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the most decisive constraint ('BUS ONLY') front-loaded. The exclusion and the alternative arrive before any optional advice.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description only needs to convey scope and routing, which it does fully. It lacks only minor operational detail (e.g. what a returned location ID looks like, how provider filtering changes the result set) to be airtight for a 4-parameter search tool.

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 75% and the schema already describes query as a partial name and offset as truncation-driven pagination. The description does not explain the provider or limit parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Find bus/coach location IDs and exact names') and immediately scopes it with 'BUS ONLY', making it distinguishable from the train siblings at a glance. The output artifact (location IDs and exact names) is named, not just the action.

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?

Explicitly names the exclusion ('Never use for train stations') and routes the agent to the correct alternative (search_train_locations). It also adds a positive usage rule for the aggregate case ('reuse exact names shared across providers'), so both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools