clickbus_booking_historyRetrieve past bus bookings as summary, structured, or raw data, with addresses, phone numbers, and GPS coordinates redacted. Choose markdown or JSON output.
Past consumer bookings. Read-only. Street/phone/GPS redacted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| privacy_mode | No | ||
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations by stating that street, phone, and GPS data are redacted, which affects the data the agent will receive. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
Three terse fragments ('Past consumer bookings. Read-only. Street/phone/GPS redacted.') convey the core purpose, safety, and privacy behavior with no filler. Everything present earns its place.
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 tool with optional parameters, the core behavior and privacy redaction are stated. However, with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the agent is left to infer what privacy_mode values like 'summary' vs 'raw' produce and when to use them. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps around invocation choices.
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% and the description never mentions privacy_mode or response_format, so it does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation. The enum values are reasonably self-explanatory, which prevents a score of 1, but the description adds no meaning to the parameters.
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?
The description states the resource ('Past consumer bookings') and signals a read or retrieval operation, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as clickbus_track_booking or clickbus_search_trips, but does so via context rather than direct contrast.
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 about when to choose this tool over clickbus_track_booking, clickbus_search_trips, or clickbus_book. 'Read-only' implies it is not for mutations, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.