get_traffic_flowRetrieve real-time traffic flow data, including vehicle counts and average speeds at monitoring sites across Sweden.
Get real-time traffic flow data including vehicle counts and average speeds at measurement points. Returns current traffic density and speed information from monitoring sites across Sweden.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of traffic flow measurements to return (default: 50) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose that data is real-time and geographically scoped to Sweden, which tells the agent about freshness and coverage. However, it says nothing about update cadence, pagination, or rate limits for what is presumably a live feed.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by the return content. No filler, though the second sentence partly restates the first's 'traffic flow' framing.
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 one-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, the description is adequate on content but thin on operating context. There is no output schema, and while the description gestures at return fields, it leaves routing and freshness details unstated.
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 100% for the single limit parameter, so the schema already explains the default and meaning. The description adds no parameter detail, which lands at the baseline for fully documented schemas.
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 gives a specific verb and resource plus the data content: real-time vehicle counts, average speeds, and density from measurement points. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_traffic_situations or get_road_conditions, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus the traffic-related siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent gets a description of the payload but no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.