Skip to main content
Glama
harshil1712

Berlin Transport MCP Server

by harshil1712

ベルリン交通局MCPサーバー

VBB(ベルリン・ブランデンブルク交通連合)APIを通じてベルリンの公共交通データへのアクセスを提供するMCPサーバー。このサーバーはv6.vbb.transport.rest APIをラップしています。

利用可能なツール

1. 検索停止

ベルリン・ブランデンブルクの公共交通機関の停留所を検索します。

パラメータ:

  • query (文字列): 停留所の検索クエリ

2. get_departures

特定の停留所の今後の出発情報を取得します。

パラメータ:

  • stop_id (文字列): 出発情報を取得する停留所ID

  • results (数値、オプション):返される結果の数

3. get_journeys

ある停留所から別の停留所までの旅程オプションを取得します。

パラメータ:

  • from (文字列): 出発地停留所ID

  • to (文字列): 目的地の停留所ID

  • departure (文字列、オプション): 出発時刻(例:明日午後2時)

  • results (数値、オプション):返される結果の数

Related MCP server: BVG MCP Server

Claude DesktopをMCPサーバーに接続する

mcp-remote プロキシを使用して、ローカル MCP クライアントからリモート MCP サーバーに接続することもできます。

Claude Desktop から MCP サーバーに接続するには、 Anthropic のクイックスタートに従い、Claude Desktop 内で [設定] > [開発] > [構成の編集] に移動します。

次の構成で更新します。

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "calculator": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "mcp-remote",
        "https://berlin-transport.mcp-tools.app/sse"  // or if local http://localhost:8787/sse
      ]
    }
  }
}

Claude を再起動すると、ツールが利用可能になるはずです。

APIドキュメント

基礎となる API の詳細については、 v6.vbb.transport.rest/getting-started.htmlをご覧ください。

始めましょう:

ワーカーに展開

これにより、MCP サーバーが次のような URL にデプロイされます: remote-mcp-server-authless.<your-account>.workers.dev/sse

あるいは、以下のコマンド ラインを使用して、ローカル マシンにリモート MCP サーバーを作成することもできます。

npm create cloudflare@latest -- my-mcp-server --template=cloudflare/ai/demos/remote-mcp-authless

MCPサーバーのカスタマイズ

独自のツールを MCP サーバーに追加するには、 this.server.tool(...)を使用してsrc/index.tsのinit()メソッド内で各ツールを定義します。

Cloudflare AI Playgroundに接続する

リモート MCP クライアントである Cloudflare AI Playground から MCP サーバーに接続できます。

  1. https://playground.ai.cloudflare.com/にアクセスしてください

  2. デプロイされた MCP サーバーの URL を入力します ( remote-mcp-server-authless.<your-account>.workers.dev/sse )

  3. MCP ツールをプレイグラウンドから直接使用できるようになりました。

Available Tools

3 tools
get_departuresD
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stop_idYesStop ID to get departures for
resultsNoNumber of results to return

TDQS

D1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Conciseness1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Purpose1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

get_journeysD
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromYesOrigin stop ID
toYesDestination stop ID
departureNoDeparture time (e.g. tomorrow 2pm)
resultsNoNumber of results to return

TDQS

D1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Conciseness1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Purpose1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

search_stopsD
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch query for stops

TDQS

D1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Conciseness1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Purpose1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 3 tool updates
    • First observedget_departures
    • First observedget_journeys
    • First observedsearch_stops

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Scored across 3 tools

Disambiguation4/5

The three tools have distinct purposes: get_departures likely retrieves departure times, get_journeys handles route planning, and search_stops finds stops or stations. While there is some potential overlap between get_departures and get_journeys (both involve travel information), the names suggest clear enough separation for an agent to differentiate them effectively.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: get_departures, get_journeys, and search_stops. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand, with no deviations in naming style.

Tool Count3/5

With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a transport domain that typically requires more operations like route details, fare information, or service alerts. While it covers basic functions, the count is borderline low for comprehensive transport-related tasks.

Completeness2/5

The tool set has significant gaps for a transport server. It lacks essential operations such as getting route details, checking fares, accessing service status or alerts, and managing user preferences. This incomplete coverage will likely cause agent failures when handling common transport queries beyond basic departure and journey lookups.

Maintenance

ActivityStale
ResponsivenessNo issues

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers