TfNSW Trip Planner MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

plan_cycling_trip

Plan a cycling trip between stops, optionally mixing bike with public transport. Specify route preference, departure time, and speed to get duration, directions, and alerts.

Instructions

Plan a cycling route, optionally combined with public transport.

Args:
    origin_id: Stop ID to start from.
    destination_id: Stop ID to finish at.
    profile: Route preference — "EASIER" (gentler gradients and quieter
        roads), "MODERATE", or "MORE_DIRECT" (fastest, busier roads).
    when: Optional ISO 8601 date/time; Sydney local time if no offset given.
    bike_only: Cycle the whole way. Set false to allow mixed bike + transit.
    max_time_minutes: Reject routes longer than this.
    cycle_speed: Assumed cycling speed in km/h.
    detail: How much to return per journey. "answer" gives only departure,
        arrival, duration, changes and the mode summary — use it for "when
        do I get there" and "how long does it take", which is most questions.
        "summary" (default) adds the legs, each with its times, route,
        platform and any alerts. "stops" adds intermediate stop names.
        "full" adds the map polyline and is very large — pair it with
        max_results=1 or 2 or the call may exceed the client's size limit.
    max_results: Maximum journeys to return.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`when`	No
`detail`	No	summary
`profile`	No	MODERATE
`bike_only`	No
`origin_id`	Yes
`cycle_speed`	No
`max_results`	No
`destination_id`	Yes
`max_time_minutes`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses bike_only behavior, route rejection based on max_time_minutes, assumed cycle_speed, and warns that 'full' detail can exceed client 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The one-sentence summary is followed by a clean, structured Args list. Every parameter earns its place with concrete meaning, and the detail-level guidance is especially useful without being verbose.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations, this description is remarkably complete: it explains all inputs, key behavioral constraints, output detail granularity, and even size-limit implications. The output schema covers return-value structure, so nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by explaining every parameter: origin/destination stop IDs, profile meanings, ISO 8601 time format with Sydney local time, bike_only, max_time_minutes, cycle_speed, detail levels, and max_results.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Plan a cycling route, optionally combined with public transport.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling plan_trip tool by emphasizing cycling and mixed-mode capability.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The context for use is clear: route planning with cycling, optionally including transit. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server