Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
swiss-transport-mcp

swiss-transport-mcp

by malkreide
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

check_transport_api_status

Read-only

Check the connectivity status of configured transport APIs to verify service availability, API key validity, and endpoint reachability.

Instructions

Prüft den Verbindungsstatus aller konfigurierten Transport-APIs.

Zeigt an, welche APIs verfügbar sind, ob die API-Keys gültig sind und ob die Dienste erreichbar sind.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_transport_api_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.3

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by detailing what the check includes (availability, key validity, reachability). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the action and purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

Given no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is fairly complete. It explains what is checked and shown. Could slightly expand on scope ('all configured APIs'), but sufficient for a simple status tool.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not need to detail parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the tool checks the connection status of all configured transport APIs, specifying what it shows: availability, API key validity, and service reachability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which query specific transport data.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when to avoid it, nor does it mention alternatives. Usage is implied from context (checking health before using other transport tools), but lacks explicit guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools