cityflo-otp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| rank_routes_by_latenessA | Rank routes by late days, late-trip share, median delay, then route ID. |
| get_route_performanceC | Return defensible lateness metrics and data-quality exclusions for one route. |
| get_route_trip_evidenceC | Return every source trip for a route, including quarantined rows and reasons. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool addresses a distinct level of analysis: ranking across routes, per-route summary metrics, and raw trip evidence. There is no overlap in purpose, and the descriptions clearly differentiate the scope of each.
All three tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (rank_routes, get_route_performance, get_route_trip_evidence) with snake_case and clear resource identifiers. The naming is predictable and unambiguous.
Three tools is on the lower end but appropriate for a focused read-only domain (route lateness analysis). The count is slightly thin, but each tool covers a needed layer of detail without redundancy.
The toolset provides ranking, per-route summary, and evidence-level data, forming a complete analysis workflow. A minor gap is the lack of a simple route listing without rankings, but the ranking tool effectively fills that role.