openbusdata

GTFS_RT_Data_feed_api_v1_gtfsrtdatafeed

Retrieve real-time bus location data filtered by geographic bounding box, route ID, and time range.

Instructions

Returns all published datafeeds

Parameters: boundingBox: Limit results to bus location data with vehicle position within the rectangular boundingBox you set using co-ordinates. [minLongitude, minLatitude, maxLongitude, maxLatitude] The default values shown are for the Liverpool area. routeId: Limit results to bus location data with the specified routeId. Use a comma-separated list to specify multiple routeId values. startTimeAfter: Limit results to bus location data with a start time after startTimeAfter. startTimeBefore: Limit results to bus location data with a start time before startTimeBefore.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "kwargs": "<kwargs>"
    },
    "name": "GTFS_RT_Data_feed_api_v1_gtfsrtdatafeed"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kwargs`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

D1.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations provided. Description implies filtering capabilities but schema only accepts a single 'kwargs' string, creating a behavioral inconsistency. No mention of side effects, authentication, or rate limits.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Description is verbose with parameter details that contradict the schema. The structure is unclear and wastes space on parameters that may not exist.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the mismatch between description and schema, and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the actual behavior or how the 'kwargs' parameter should be formatted.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema lists only 'kwargs' as a required string, while description describes four separate parameters (boundingBox, routeId, etc.) not present in the schema. This contradiction misleads the user about how to invoke the tool.

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

Purpose2/5

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

Description states 'Returns all published datafeeds' but then focuses on filtering bus location data, which is contradictory. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like SIRI_VM_Data_feed_api_v1_datafeed.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Missing context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.

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

Deploy Server