Locate public transport stops near a latitude and longitude using an optional radius in meters. Use it for stop search and trip planning across Estonia.
Find public transport stops near a given location.
Args: lat: Latitude lon: Longitude radius: Search radius in meters (default 500, max 2000)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes | ||
| radius | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, result ordering, or whether the lookup is a safe read. Aside from the radius cap, it offers no behavioral context beyond the bare purpose.
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 purpose sentence followed by a compact argument list; there is no filler or redundancy. Every line carries information.
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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and a 3-parameter geospatial lookup is relatively simple. Still, the absence of any guidance on result limits or how it differs from search_stops leaves the definition only 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: lat/lon are merely restated as 'Latitude'/'Longitude', though the radius units (meters) and the max 2000 constraint are genuine additions beyond the schema.
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 (Find) and resource (public transport stops) with the scope 'near a given location', which is clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_stops, leaving the agent to guess which search tool to pick.
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 by the name and the phrase 'near a given location' – an agent can infer this is a proximity/geospatial lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no reference to the overlapping sibling search_stops.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.