io.github.mohammad-abbasi-sh/flixtrain-mcp

flixtrain_search_cities

Search cities by name and return train-station flags for train searches, with an optional limit of 1–10 results.

Instructions

Find cities by name (with train-station flag) for the train search. query: e.g. Berlin, Köln, München. limit: 1..10 (default 10).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "flixtrain_search_cities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden; it does disclose that each result carries a train-station flag, which is the operationally important detail for deciding whether the city is usable downstream. It says nothing about read-only nature (implied by "Find"), result size beyond limit, pagination, or behavior on ambiguous/no matches.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by per-parameter notes in a compact two-sentence form; no filler or restatement of the tool name. Every clause adds information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and both input parameters are covered despite 0% schema coverage. The only gap is edge-case behavior (partial matches, no results), which is minor for a two-parameter lookup tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents both parameters: query with concrete examples (Berlin, Köln, München) indicating expected name format, and limit with its valid range 1..10 and default 10. Only the behavior when limit is out of range or query is empty is left unspecified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Find cities by name") plus a distinguishing scope ("with train-station flag"), which lets an agent separate it from flixtrain_search_trains. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the sibling, but the noun choice does the work.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"for the train search" implies this is a lookup step feeding flixtrain_search_trains, which is genuine contextual guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of what to do if a city is not found, and no named alternative.

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

Deploy Server