odpt-mcp

get_railway_fare

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve listed Toei rail fares in yen for an exact origin-destination station ID pair, so you can calculate trip costs between two stations.

Instructions

Get listed Toei rail fares in yen for an exact pair of station IDs.

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": {
      "from_station_id": "<from_station_id>",
      "to_station_id": "<to_station_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_railway_fare"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to_station_id`	Yes
`from_station_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are 'listed' fares (published values, not computed), denominated in yen, and tied to an exact station pair rather than a route. It stops short of saying what happens when no fare is listed for the pair.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource, unit, and constraint, and no filler. 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?

For a simple two-parameter fare lookup with an output schema that documents the return values, this is nearly complete. The only meaningful gap is behavior for station pairs with no listed fare or for cross-operator journeys.

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%, but the two parameters are self-naming and the schema's regex pattern already encodes the required ODPT station ID format, so the schema carries more weight than coverage alone suggests. The description reinforces that the pair must be exact and both IDs are Toei stations, but adds no format or matching details of its own.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get listed Toei rail fares in yen') and constrains it to an 'exact pair of station IDs'. The word 'rail' plus 'Toei' implicitly separates it from get_bus_fare, but the description never explicitly contrasts with that sibling.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need a fare between two specific stations. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. that it won't compute multi-leg or transfer itineraries) and no named alternative such as a route search for cases where the station pair has no listed fare.

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

Deploy Server