Search a route by keyword to find matching stops or stations, using route ID and optional direction.
Search for stops/stations along a specific route by keyword or station name (e.g., search 'Stadium' or 'Nicollet' on the Green Line).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Text to search in the stop name/description. | |
| route_id | Yes | Route ID (e.g. '902', '901', '94'). | |
| direction_id | No | Direction ID (0 or 1). Default is 0 if omitted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the search is route-scoped, but does not specify whether results are limited to that route, what happens with no matches, or the return format. It does not contradict anything but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the core action.
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 with a concrete example, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the example aids comprehension. Extremely efficient.
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?
Tool is simple, but without an output schema, the description should hint at what is returned. It does not mention that it returns a list of matching stops or any field details. Also does not clarify direction_id behavior beyond the schema. Adequate for basic usage but leaves some expectations unstated.
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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds an example for query but does not elaborate on query semantics beyond 'keyword or station name' or the role of direction_id. It provides marginal extra value over 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?
Clearly states the verb 'search' with resource 'stops/stations', scoped to 'along a specific route', and method 'by keyword or station name'. Provides a concrete example and implicitly differentiates from sibling get_route_stops which likely lists all stops. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.
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?
Does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_route_stops. The description implies that it is for keyword-based lookup, but there is no guidance on when not to use it, or how it compares to listing all stops. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.