ViaggiaTreno MCP Server

Itinerario Treno Canvas

itinerario_treno_canvas

Retrieve a visual tree of a train's itinerary from an origin station, showing stop by stop whether departures or arrivals have occurred and if the train is stopped at a station.

Instructions

Restituisce la rappresentazione visuale ad albero (tratteCanvas) dell'itinerario del treno, indicando fermata per fermata se la partenza o l'arrivo sono già avvenuti e se il treno è fermo in stazione.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`numero_treno`	Yes
`data_partenza`	Yes
`codice_stazione_origine`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.0Oct 24, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / result / items / properties / orientamento / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

changedOutput schema / properties / result / items / properties / orientamento / description

Previous value: -"Orientamento carrozze multilingua"New value: +"Orientamento carrozze multilingua (elementi possono essere null)"

First observedv0.1.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose meaningful behavioral content — that each stop carries flags for departure/arrival already occurred and train currently stopped — but says nothing about error conditions, required identifiers being valid, or response size/limits.

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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the return artifact ('tratteCanvas'). It could be tighter only by trimming the parenthetical or by adding the missing parameter guidance.

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 the return shape needn't be explained, and the description does characterize the semantic content of that output. However, with three required parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, an agent still lacks enough to call it correctly — the date format alone is a real blocker.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions parameters at all. In particular, 'data_partenza' is typed as integer with no format hint (epoch? YYYYMMDD?), and 'codice_stazione_origine' as a string with no indication of the expected station-code convention — these are exactly the gaps the description should close.

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 and resource: it returns the visual tree representation ('tratteCanvas') of a train's itinerary, with per-stop status flags. This is clearly distinguishable from list-style siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with stato_treno or elenco_tratte_ferroviarie, which cover adjacent ground.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to prefer this tool over stato_treno, elenco_tratte_ferroviarie, or treni_su_tratta. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the phrasing 'visual tree representation'.

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