Check real-time Indian Railways PNR status, passenger manifest, coach and berth allocations, confirmation probability, and chart preparation status using a 10-digit PNR number.
Check real-time Indian Railways PNR status, passenger manifest, coach & berth allocations (e.g. S4 65 LOWER BERTH), confirmation probability, and chart preparation status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pnr | Yes | The 10-digit Indian Railways PNR reservation number (e.g. "2265248473"). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 disclose that the data is 'real-time' and that chart preparation status is included, which tells the agent results are live and state-dependent, but it says nothing about failure modes (invalid/not-found PNR), auth or rate limits, or how the response is structured.
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?
One front-loaded sentence led by the verb and resource, followed by a tight enumeration of returned data points. The 'S4 65 LOWER BERTH' example is short and clarifies output format rather than padding.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral and return-value context, and it only names data categories without describing shape or error behavior. Adequate for an agent to decide to call it, but thin on what it will get back and when it will fail.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already defines 'pnr' as a 10-digit reservation number with an example. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema documents, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (check) and a specific resource (Indian Railways PNR status) and enumerates exactly what data comes back — manifest, coach/berth, confirmation probability, chart status — which implicitly separates it from siblings like get_live_running_status and get_vacant_berths_post_chart. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
Usage is only implied: you need a PNR, therefore you call this. There is no statement of when to prefer it over check_seat_availability or get_vacant_berths_post_chart, and no note about pre- vs post-chart relevance despite mentioning chart preparation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.