Look up station codes for Chinese cities by city name. Supports single or multiple cities separated by '|'.
通过中文城市名查询代表该城市的 station_code。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| citys | Yes | 要查询的城市，比如"北京"。若要查询多个城市，请用|分割，比如"北京|上海"。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the input and query target; it does not state that this is a read-only operation, what happens if a city is not found, how multiple cities are processed, or the structure of the returned data. The addition of '中文' as an input constraint is minor.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the query verb and resource, and has no filler. Every word contributes meaning.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description adequately states what the tool does and what input it expects. However, it does not explain the return value (though the name implies it), nor does it help disambiguate among the sibling tools. With no output schema, some return-format information would improve completeness.
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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter, including a description and examples. The description adds a small semantic nuance ('中文' Chinese) and the notion that station_code 'represents' the city, but it is mostly redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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?
The description states a specific action (查询/query) on a defined resource (station_code), with an explicit input method (中文城市名/Chinese city name). It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like get-station-code-by-names, leaving room for confusion among the closely related tools.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of its siblings. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references. For example, the description does not explain how this differs from get-station-code-by-names or get-stations-code-in-city.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.