Retrieve a route summary with statistics, warnings, and validation status by route ID, excluding geometry.
Résumé d'un itinéraire (stats, avertissements, statut de validation), sans la géométrie.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| route_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| stats | Yes | ||
| n_pois | No | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| n_points | Yes | ||
| route_id | Yes | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| validation_status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuine value by declaring what is returned (stats, warnings, validation status) and explicitly that geometry is omitted, which tells the agent what it will NOT get. However, it omits any mention of permissions, rate limits, or the read-only nature beyond the implicit 'get'.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource and the returned/excluded content with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return structure need not be re-explained, and the description correctly signals content and geometry exclusion. But with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves open when this tool should be chosen over the numerous route siblings, making it only minimally complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the single required parameter route_id has no schema description. The description adds no format, source, or provenance details for the identifier. It is somewhat self-evident from the name, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 resource ('itinéraire'/route) and enumerates the returned content (stats, warnings, validation status) while explicitly excluding geometry. This distinguishes it reasonably from scalar sibling tools like compute_stats or validate_route, since it is an aggregated summary. It does not name a sibling directly, but the scope is clear enough for decent disambiguation.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many route siblings (list_routes, compute_stats, data_quality, validate_route). The phrase 'sans la géométrie' hints at a use case (you don't need coordinates), but this is implicit at best. An agent gets no clear routing logic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.