Skip to main content
Glama
malkreide

SBB Open Data MCP Server

by malkreide

SBB Rollmaterial

sbb_get_rolling_stock
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch technical data for SBB trains, multiple units, and coaches, including seat capacity, build year, length, and weight.

Instructions

Ruft technische Daten zum SBB-Rollmaterial (Züge, Triebzüge, Wagen) ab.

Enthält Fahrzeugtyp, Sitzplatzkapazität (1./2. Kl.), Baujahr, Länge und Gewicht.

Args: params (RollingStockInput): Parameter: - vehicle_type (Optional[str]): Fahrzeugtyp, z.B. 'IC 2000', 'TGV', 'FV-Dosto' - limit (int): Max. Resultate - offset (int): Paginierung - response_format (str): 'markdown' oder 'json'

Returns: str: Rollmaterial-Daten mit Kapazität, Baujahr und technischen Kennzahlen. Schema: {vehicle_type, built_year, seats_1st, seats_2nd, total_seats, length_mm, weight_t}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultsYesRecords as returned by data.sbb.ch
paginationYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "$defs": {
      +    "PaginationOutput": {
      +      "properties": {
      +        "has_more": {
      +          "title": "Has More",
      +          "type": "boolean"
      +        },
      +        "next_offset": {
      +          "anyOf": [
      +            {
      +              "type": "integer"
      +            },
      +            {
      +              "type": "null"
      +            }
      +          ],
      +          "title": "Next Offset"
      +        },
      +        "offset": {
      +          "title": "Offset",
      +          "type": "integer"
      +        },
      +        "returned": {
      +          "title": "Returned",
      +          "type": "integer"
      +        },
      +        "total_count": {
      +          "title": "Total Count",
      +          "type": "integer"
      +        }
      +      },
      +      "required": [
      +        "total_count",
      +        "returned",
      +        "offset",
      +        "has_more",
      +        "next_offset"
      +      ],
      +      "title": "PaginationOutput",
      +      "type": "object"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "description": "A page of raw data.sbb.ch records plus pagination.",
      +  "properties": {
      +    "pagination": {
      +      "$ref": "#/$defs/PaginationOutput"
      +    },
      +    "results": {
      +      "description": "Records as returned by data.sbb.ch",
      +      "items": {
      +        "additionalProperties": true,
      +        "type": "object"
      +      },
      +      "title": "Results",
      +      "type": "array"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "pagination",
      +    "results"
      +  ],
      +  "title": "PagedRecordsOutput",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.4
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
      -  "properties": {
      -    "result": {
      -      "title": "Result",
      -      "type": "string"
      -    }
      -  },
      -  "required": [
      -    "result"
      -  ],
      -  "title": "sbb_get_rolling_stockOutput",
      -  "type": "object"
      -}New value: +null
  3. 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds only the field-level content of the response; it discloses no auth needs, rate limits, or pagination caveats beyond the bare offset/limit args.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by Args/Returns blocks. Some redundancy between the Args list and the actual schema, but given the 0% schema coverage that restatement is justified rather than wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, yet it helpfully lists the response fields. For a simple read-only list query with full annotation coverage and simple params, the definition is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the param burden and it does so reasonably: it explains vehicle_type with concrete examples, limit as max results, offset as pagination, and response_format as markdown/json. The explanations are terse ('Max. Resultate') but functional.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieves) and a well-defined resource (technical data on SBB rolling stock: trains, multiple units, coaches) and lists the contained fields. It is clearly distinct from all siblings (disruptions, stations, frequency), though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 by the data it returns, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance relative to the eight sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is the tool for vehicle technical specifications.

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