Retrieve a train's full route schedule by train number, including intermediate stations, arrival/departure times, halt durations, and total distance in kilometers.
Get full train route schedule, intermediate halt stations, arrival/departure timings, stop durations, and total distance in km.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| train_no | Yes | The 4-5 digit train number (e.g. "12557"). |
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 burden, and 'Get' reasonably signals a read-only lookup. It adds value by disclosing the shape of the result (halts, timings, durations, distance), but says nothing about whether the data is scheduled vs. live, coverage of days of operation, or what happens for an invalid train number.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and then a compact enumeration of returned data. No preamble or filler; it could only be improved by adding a short routing clause rather than by trimming.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by listing the fields the caller will receive. Minor gaps remain (time format, timezone/day-of-week behavior, error semantics), but for a one-parameter lookup this is close to sufficient.
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 there is a single required parameter whose schema entry already gives the format and an example ("12557"). The description adds no additional meaning about train_no, which is acceptable given the schema does the work.
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?
Starts with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full train route schedule') and enumerates what is returned: intermediate halts, arrival/departure timings, stop durations, and distance in km. That enumeration differentiates it in practice from get_live_running_status or get_station_timetable, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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 use case (fetch the static route/timetable of one train by number) is strongly implied by the field list, so an agent can infer when to reach for it. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to get_live_running_status for real-time position, which is the most likely confusion point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.