ticker_infomobilitaFetches short scrolling notices from the ViaggiaTreno information strip to provide real-time railway service alerts.
Restituisce gli avvisi brevi scorrevoli della striscia informativa del portale ViaggiaTreno.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys only that the result is short scrolling alerts; nothing about freshness, auth requirements, or update cadence is disclosed. Low risk as a zero-param read, but the disclosure is thin.
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?
A single compact sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though there is no structure beyond the one clause.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a zero-param read tool the definition is minimal-but-viable, though it leaves the agent without any routing cue relative to the other infomobilità tools.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
Names a specific verb ("Restituisce") and a well-defined resource: the short scrolling alerts of the ViaggiaTreno portal's info strip. This is sufficient to distinguish it from near-siblings like notizie_infomobilita and titoli_infomobilita, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with 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?
No statement of when to use this tool versus the closely related infomobilità siblings (notizie_infomobilita, titoli_infomobilita). The agent must infer the distinction from resource wording alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.