service_hoursCheck if a TTC route operates on a given date, including holiday exceptions, and get its first and last trip times for service planning.
Whether a route runs on a date (calendar plus holiday exceptions) and its first and last trip times. GTFS times past 24:00 belong to the previous service day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| route | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the GTFS-specific convention that times past 24:00 belong to the previous service day, which is non-obvious behavior. However, it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, nor does it mention error conditions or permission requirements.
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 two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the essential GTFS caveat. Every sentence 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?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a two-parameter query with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves gaps around parameter formats/defaults and read-only behavior. It is adequate but not complete for an agent to invoke correctly without inference.
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%, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameters 'route' and 'date' from context, but does not specify the date format, what a null date means (e.g., today?), or what form the route identifier takes. This leaves important parameter semantics undocumented.
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 purpose: whether a route runs on a date and its first/last trip times, including holiday exceptions. It is clear what resource and operation are involved, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as service_status 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. The description implies the tool is for checking service calendars, but offers no routing advice to help an agent choose it over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.