Look up a specific transport stop by its numeric TfNSW ID to get its location, or confirm no stop exists for that ID.
Look up a single stop by its numeric TfNSW stop ID.
Returns `{"location": null}` if no stop carries that ID.
Args:
stop_id: The stop ID, e.g. "10101331".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stop_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation through the verb 'look up' and explicitly describes the not-found behavior (returning null). While it doesn't state side effects explicitly, the nature of the operation makes it clear that it does not modify data, covering the essential behavioral trait.
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?
The description is concise, using two sentences and a simple args list. It conveys the essential information without unnecessary verbosity, making it easy for an agent to parse.
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?
The description covers the not-found case but omits the structure of a successful return. It does not specify what fields the returned stop object contains, which could be necessary for downstream processing. The availability of an output schema is noted in context but not detailed in the description, leaving a gap.
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 single parameter stop_id is described with an example ('e.g., 10101331') and clarified as a 'numeric TfNSW stop ID'. This adds meaningful context to the schema, which only indicates a string type, by implying the expected format and purpose.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action: looking up a single stop by its numeric TfNSW stop ID. It distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools by emphasizing the use of the numeric ID, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_stop or best_stop. It implies that having a numeric stop ID is the trigger, but it does not contrast with other tools or explain scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.