Fetch bikeshare system metadata, operator info, and resolved GBFS feed endpoints from gbfs.json using a system ID or auto-discovery URL.
Fetch system metadata, operator information, and resolved feed endpoints from gbfs.json for a given system_id or auto-discovery URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| system_id_or_url | Yes | System ID from catalog (e.g. "citi_bike_nyc", "bay_wheels", "velib_metropole") or direct gbfs.json URL. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavior: this tool resolves feed endpoints from the GBFS discovery document rather than returning raw data. But it says nothing about error handling for unknown system IDs, network calls to the URL, or latency/caching characteristics of an external fetch.
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 verb and resource, every clause earning its place. No filler or redundancy.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates the returned content (system metadata, operator info, resolved feed endpoints), giving the agent a sense of the response. It is a single-parameter read tool, so little else is strictly required, though failure behavior for bad IDs/URLs is unaddressed.
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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter with concrete examples. The description restates 'system_id or auto-discovery URL' plus the gbfs.json source, adding only marginal framing beyond the schema. 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 (Fetch) and a specific resource (system metadata, operator information, resolved feed endpoints from gbfs.json), scoped to a system_id or URL. This clearly separates it from siblings like gbfs_get_stations or gbfs_get_alerts, which fetch different GBFS feeds.
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 description implies the call context (given a system_id or auto-discovery URL, retrieve the discovery document). However, it never states when to prefer this over gbfs_list_systems or when the URL form is appropriate versus the catalog ID form. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.