Retrieve detailed Indian Railways station information by station code, including station name, state, and railway division for accurate station lookup.
Get detailed station information by station code, including station name, state, and railway division.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| station_code | Yes | Station code (e.g. "NDLS", "PNBE", "BTI"). |
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 implies a read-only lookup and lists some returned fields, but it does not mention error behavior for invalid codes, rate limits, authentication, or whether results are cached. For a simple lookup this is adequate but incomplete.
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?
It is a single efficient sentence with the primary action front-loaded. Every clause earns its place by naming the lookup key and the returned information. It could be slightly tighter but is well structured.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It names three returned fields (station name, state, railway division), which is useful, but it does not describe the full response shape or failure cases. For a one-parameter lookup this is minimally adequate.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already defines station_code with examples such as "NDLS". The description adds no format rules, case sensitivity, or validation beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource: get detailed station information by station code. It also names the returned fields (name, state, division). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_stations, but the by-code lookup scope is clear.
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?
The phrase 'by station code' implies this is a single-record lookup rather than a search, which gives some usage guidance. However, the description never says when to use this instead of search_stations or get_station_timetable, and it lists no alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.