transport-gzm

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

alerts

Retrieve active service alerts including planned works, delays, detours, and stop closures. Identify disruptions affecting your route or stop.

Instructions

List active service alerts (planned works, delays, detours, stop closures). Use this for 'is the tram line broken?', 'any works today?', 'why is my bus late?'.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "alerts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum alerts to return (default 100).
`stop_id`	No	Only alerts affecting this stop.
`route_id`	No	Only alerts affecting this route.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists 'active' alerts, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose further details like real-time nature, performance characteristics, or any side effects, which is acceptable for a simple read-only list operation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence plus usage examples, front-loading the core purpose and immediately providing context. Every part is necessary and there is no redundancy or wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics (via schema). It does not mention ordering or pagination beyond the limit parameter, but these are reasonable defaults. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description explicitly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'active service alerts', with specific alert types (planned works, delays, detours, stop closures). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like alert_by_id, feed_summary, etc., without ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides concrete usage examples ('is the tram line broken?') that imply when to use the tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., alert_by_id for specific alerts), but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to select appropriately.

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

Deploy Server