Skip to main content
Glama
mavrovde

ViaFrei

by mavrovde
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

find_roadworks_ahead

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up planned roadworks on a single German Autobahn within a chosen date range, showing affected section, direction, restrictions, and start/end dates.

Instructions

Returns the roadworks PLANNED on one German motorway inside a date window: the section and direction as published, what is restricted, and the start and end. Use when a date or window is named, the question says geplant, or someone asks how long a site lasts ("Baustellen auf der A7 in den Sommerferien?"). ONE road per call. Do NOT use when more than one motorway is named, for the situation this minute, or for Baustellen with neither date nor geplant — all three are check_autobahn_traffic; whether a road is open — call check_road_status. ≤ 92 days, max 20 sites. Show the attribution line.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoLast day of the window, inclusive, as YYYY-MM-DD. Omit for 7 days after `from`, which is the right window for "am I going to hit roadworks on this drive". The window may span at most 92 days. For "how long will this last" / "wie lange dauert die Baustelle noch", leave both dates out: the default 7 days already returns the site's planned end date. Only widen — 28 days is the sensible step — when the person asked about a period that long.
fromNoFirst day of the window, as YYYY-MM-DD in German local time. Omit for today. Resolve relative wording ("next Friday", "in den Sommerferien", "nächsten Monat") into real dates yourself, counted from today's date; this argument never takes words, and it never takes a fixed example date — the window a person means moves with the calendar.
roadYesThe Autobahn to look at, one per call, e.g. "A7" or "A100" — "A7", "A 7" and "a7" are the same road. Bundesautobahnen only: this feed carries no Bundesstraßen and no city streets. Ask again for a second motorway.
limitNoMaximum sites to return (1–20, default 10), ordered by planned start. Every returned site is in the structured result; the readable text prints the first 10 and says how many more of them are in the structured half. The answer always names how many sites the window holds in total, so a small limit never hides the size of the problem.
languageNoSet this on every call to the language the person is writing in: "en" if they wrote English, "de" if they wrote German. Do not leave it out because it has a default — the default is only the fallback when the language is genuinely unclear, and an English question answered in German is a wrong answer. Place names, station names and road numbers are never translated in either language; in English the German term is kept in parentheses so the person recognises it on signs and in local apps.de

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / to / description
      Previous value: -"Last day of the window, inclusive, as YYYY-MM-DD. Omit for 7 days after `from`, which is the right window for \"am I going to hit roadworks on this drive\". The window may span at most 90 days. For \"how long will this last\" / \"wie lange dauert die Baustelle noch\", leave both dates out: the default 7 days already returns the site's planned end date. Only widen — 28 days is the sensible step — when the person asked about a period that long."New value: +"Last day of the window, inclusive, as YYYY-MM-DD. Omit for 7 days after `from`, which is the right window for \"am I going to hit roadworks on this drive\". The window may span at most 92 days. For \"how long will this last\" / \"wie lange dauert die Baustelle noch\", leave both dates out: the default 7 days already returns the site's planned end date. Only widen — 28 days is the sensible step — when the person asked about a period that long."
  2. First observedv0.0.9

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's burden is lighter. The description still adds operational facts: a 92-day window cap, a 20-site cap, the 'show the attribution line' output expectation, and how the readable text truncates beyond 10 sites. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with purpose, then usage rules, then constraints, then the attribution reminder. Dense but every clause carries a routing or parameter rule. Slightly overstuffed with nested parentheses and quoted examples, which costs a point on tightness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers windows, caps, language behavior, attribution, and alternatives to sibling tools. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to route the excluded cases elsewhere.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless reinforces parameter behavior in prose — one road per call, resolve relative dates to real dates, the default 7-day window, and that 'language' must be set on every call rather than left to its default. That is meaningful semantic reinforcement, though it largely mirrors the schema text.

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 ('roadworks PLANNED on one German motorway inside a date window') plus the fields returned (section, direction, restrictions, start/end). It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools check_autobahn_traffic and check_road_status, so an agent can distinguish it without inspecting schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit triggers (date or window named, the word 'geplant', 'how long'), explicit exclusions (multiple motorways, current situation, no date/geplant), and names the alternative for each excluded case. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives guidance the rubric rewards.

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