db-fahrplan-mcp

find_station

Search German train stations by name, EVA number, or DS100 code to retrieve their EVA identifiers.

Instructions

Search German train stations and get their EVA numbers.

Args: pattern: Station name, EVA number, or DS100 code. Prefix search - exact DB naming works best (e.g. "Stolberg(Rheinl)Hbf" rather than "Stolberg Hbf"). Umlauts often fail; try "*" as wildcard.

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": {
      "pattern": "<pattern>"
    },
    "name": "find_station"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pattern`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses search behavior (prefix, exact naming, umlaut issues, wildcard). Does not mention authentication or result limits, but output schema likely covers return format.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences and an example. Front-loaded with purpose, then parameter details.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-parameter tool with output schema, description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what parameter accepts, and usage tips. No gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates by explaining that 'pattern' can be station name, EVA number, or DS100 code, with prefix search and wildcard examples.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Clearly states the tool searches German train stations and retrieves EVA numbers. The description distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on live changes, departures, and recent changes.

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?

Provides clear usage guidance including prefix search, exact naming recommendations, umlaut limitations, and wildcard support. However, does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives.

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

Deploy Server