clickbus_capabilitiesIdentify which ClickBus operations are available: search places and trips, view booking history, and track bookings are enabled, while booking and cancellation stay gated until explicitly enabled.
What this unofficial MCP can read and which writes stay gated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which tell the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds the context that writes are 'gated', which aligns with the annotations and adds a small layer of transparency about the tool's purpose, but it doesn't describe any further behavioral traits like output specifics or error cases.
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?
The description is concise - a single short sentence - and front-loads the core idea of the tool. However, it could additional a bit more detail about the tool's output or specific capabilities, so it's not perfect.
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?
Given the tool is a simple capabilities overview with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but slightly vague. An agent might wonder what exactly 'read' and 'gated writes' refer to; a brief list of capabilities or a pointer to sibling tools for detailed actions would have made it more complete.
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?
The schema has only one optional parameter (response_format) with an enum of markdown or json, and its meaning is clear from the schema. The description doesn't need to add much; the parameter is self-explanatory. Baseline for 0 required params is 4, and the schema covers it fully.
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, 'What this unofficial MCP can read and which writes stay gated,' indicates the tool documents the capabilities of the MCP server, separating read operations from write-gated operations. However, it doesn't clearly state what specific operations or resources are covered, and it is somewhat generic compared to what could be expected from a 'capabilities' tool.
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 tool is for understanding available reads and gated writes, but it doesn't explicitly mention when to use it compared to alternatives like clickbus_connection_status or clickbus_privacy_audit. No direct usage guidance or conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.