ViaggiaTreno MCP Server

Tabellone Partenze

tabellone_partenze

Retrieve real-time departure boards for an Italian railway station, including destinations, scheduled times, delays, platforms, and train status.

Instructions

Restituisce il tabellone delle partenze in tempo reale per una stazione ferroviaria (es. 'S01700' per Milano Centrale, 'S08409' per Roma Termini). Fornisce: treni in partenza, destinazione, orario programmato, ritardo in minuti, binario programmato ed effettivo, stato di circolazione e codice origine/data per ulteriori approfondimenti.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data_ora`	No
`codice_stazione`	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 / compRitardo / 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 / compRitardo / description

Previous value: -"Testo del ritardo multilingua"New value: +"Testo del ritardo multilingua (elementi possono essere null, osservato dal vivo)"

First observedv0.1.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that data is real-time and enumerates the returned fields (delay, platform programmed vs actual, circulation status). However, it says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid station code, whether results are cached or how fresh 'tempo reale' is, or how much data is returned per call. Useful but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded before the field enumeration, with no throat-clearing. The second half re-lists fields that the output schema already declares, which is redundant, but the text stays short enough that it does not impede use.

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?

The return values are documented by the output schema, yet the description spends its length restating them while leaving the real gaps open: how to obtain a valid codice_stazione and what data_ora does. For a simple read tool this is workable but not complete.

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%, so the description must explain both parameters. The station-code examples give a useful hint about codice_stazione format, but data_ora is never mentioned at all — its format, whether it selects a future timetable rather than now, and its default of null are entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Restituisce il tabellone delle partenze in tempo reale") scoped to a single station, and the departures-vs-arrivals distinction is inherent in the named resource, so an agent can separate it from tabellone_arrivi at a glance. The concrete station-code examples ('S01700' Milano Centrale, 'S08409' Roma Termini) make the resource identifiable without opening the schema.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer tabellone_arrivi, stato_treno, or treni_diretti_tra_stazioni, and no hint that autocompleta_stazione / cerca_stazione should be called first to resolve a station code. The examples imply a code format but nothing routes the agent among the many sibling tools.

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