Skip to main content
Glama

get_bus_fare

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the listed Toei bus fare in yen between two stops on the same route pattern by providing the route pattern ID and stop IDs.

Instructions

Get listed Toei bus fares in yen between two stops on the same route pattern.

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_id": "<pattern_id>",
      "from_stop_id": "<from_stop_id>",
      "to_stop_id": "<to_stop_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_bus_fare"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pattern_idYes
to_stop_idYes
from_stop_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with the 'listed' qualifier (published fares only, not computed discounts) and the same-pattern precondition that explains why pattern_id is required, but says nothing about behavior when the precondition fails.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single well-formed sentence with the key constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably under-specified for a three-required-parameter tool rather than over-long.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a tool whose central precondition is 'same route pattern', the definition never says what happens when stops are on different patterns, nor what 'listed' excludes – a meaningful gap relative to the tool's lookup complexity.

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 0% – only regex patterns and titles exist – so the description must carry the burden. It conveys that pattern_id is a route pattern and the other two are stops on that pattern, but it does not explain the ODPT ID format or what to do if the two stops span different patterns.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get listed Toei bus fares in yen') plus the scope constraint 'between two stops on the same route pattern'. That scope clause alone distinguishes it from get_railway_fare and from route/timetable siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The 'same route pattern' clause implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named (e.g. get_railway_fare for trains). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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