prt_get_routesFetches route metadata from PRT TrueTime getroutes, letting agents retrieve and identify Pittsburgh Regional Transit routes by data feed.
Fetch route metadata from TrueTime getroutes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rtpidatafeed | No | Example: Port Authority Bus or Light Rail |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds only the upstream service name and discloses nothing about return shape, datafeed scoping behavior, or result size; with annotations doing the heavy lifting this is minimal added value.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, clearly leading with the action and resource. It is efficient, though extremely terse.
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?
For a simple read-only, one-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves unclear what 'route metadata' contains and how omitting rtpidatafeed affects results, but the annotations and schema cover the essentials.
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 optional parameter, so the schema already documents rtpidatafeed with an example. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation.
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 (Fetch) and resource (route metadata) plus the upstream source (TrueTime getroutes), so the purpose is unmistakable. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like prt_get_directions or prt_get_stops, which an agent must infer from the resource noun.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling get_* tools, nor any stated prerequisites or context of use. The agent must guess from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.