Spoke Dispatch MCP server

Get a route

get_route

Read-only

Retrieve a single delivery route's stop count, assigned driver, plan, and state by route ID for dispatch oversight.

Instructions

One route with its stop count, driver, plan and state. Use list_route_stops for the stops.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "route_id": "<route_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`route_id`	Yes	Route ID (routes/<id> or the bare <id>)
`include_contact_details`	No	Include email addresses and phone numbers typed into the title

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful disclosure of what fields the record contains, but says nothing about the effect of include_contact_details (PII exposure), auth requirements, or what happens when the ID is unknown.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the returned-content summary is front-loaded ahead of the sibling redirect. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the returned record shape, which is exactly the burden it must carry. It leaves a small gap around the PII-flagging parameter and error behavior, but for a simple two-parameter read tool it is close to sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both route_id (including the routes/<id> pattern) and include_contact_details documented in-schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies even though it hints at the returned field set.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (a route) and enumerates what comes back — stop count, driver, plan, state — which is far more specific than the title 'Get a route'. It also names a sibling, but for the stops sub-resource rather than for the retrieval itself, so differentiation from get_plan/get_driver is only partial.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly routes the agent to list_route_stops for stop-level data, which is a genuine when-to-use-this-vs-alternative signal. It stops short of stating any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., that a route_id must be known first), so it is clear context without full when/when-not coverage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server