find_stationLook up German railway stations by name or partial name and retrieve their name, EVA number, and DS100 code for timetable queries.
Find German railway stations by name. Returns name, EVA number and DS100 code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Station name or part of it, e.g. 'Dresden Hbf' or 'Köln' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation as read-only and open-world. The description adds useful return content (name, EVA number, DS100 code) but does not mention matching behavior, empty results, or rate limits.
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 short sentences with no wasted wording. The core action and return fields are front-loaded.
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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema, this is nearly complete. The main minor gap is that it does not explain how partial-name matching works or what happens when no station is found.
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 coverage is 100%, and the single query parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no syntax or matching details beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a specific verb and resource: find German railway stations by name. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling departure and arrival tools, though it does not explicitly name them.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or relationship to the sibling tools. An agent must infer that this is a station lookup step before querying departures or arrivals.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.