Extract deadheads, yard pulls, non-revenue positioning trips, and depot movements from TODS trips_supplement.txt or run_events.txt files using a local feed path.
Extracts deadheads, yard pulls, non-revenue positioning trips, and depot movements identified in trips_supplement.txt or run_events.txt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feed_path | Yes | Path to local directory or .zip containing the TODS dataset. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It says what is extracted but does not disclose read-only nature, side effects, return format, error handling, or any operational traits needed to call it confidently.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and entity list. It is appropriately sized with no obvious filler, though the list could be slightly clearer with separators.
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 one-parameter getter with a fully documented schema but no output schema or annotations, the description identifies the extracted entity types and source files. It does not explain return values or how the output is structured, leaving a gap for an extraction tool.
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 coverage is 100%, so the single feed_path parameter is already documented. The description adds domain context by naming the source files it reads from, but adds no syntax or format details 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 ('Extracts') and concrete resource types: deadheads, yard pulls, non-revenue positioning trips, and depot movements. It clearly differentiates from generic run or vehicle assignment tools, though it does not explicitly name siblings.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The mention of source files (trips_supplement.txt or run_events.txt) implies a narrow context but does not tell an agent when to choose this over tods_get_runs or others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.