ttc-mcp

Arrivals

arrivals

Retrieve next TTC bus, streetcar, or train times for a stop or rail platform, including real-time predictions, schedule fallback, crowding, detours, and closure notes.

Instructions

Next vehicles at a bus or streetcar stop (BusTime predictions, crowding from the vehicle feed) or next trains at a rail platform (NTAS). Rows carry basis realtime or schedule: when no real-time prediction exists the timetable fills in and a note says so. A rail platform inside an active closure answers no arrivals at all (NTAS keeps predicting there) with a note and the closure. Every row carries detour_id (the vehicle's trip is on a detour) and the answer lists the stop's disruptions. Answers are best effort, from the TTC's own site endpoints; historical occupancy is out of scope.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`stop`	Yes
`limit`	No
`route`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description discloses several behavioral traits: basis (realtime/schedule) with notes, closure handling, detour_id per row, disruption listing, best-effort sourcing from TTC endpoints, and that historical occupancy is out of scope. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but adds substantial context beyond schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds value (edge cases, data basis, detour info, limitations) without excessive verbosity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers behavioral aspects well but omits parameter semantics and explicit usage guidance, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no explanation of the 'stop', 'limit', or 'route' parameters. No format, expected values, or effects are described.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool returns next vehicles at a bus/streetcar stop or next trains at a rail platform, with real-time or schedule basis. It distinguishes itself from general vehicle tracking but does not explicitly name alternatives like next_trains or scheduled_departures.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies usage for arrivals at a stop/platform, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. No alternatives are named.

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