Winnipeg City MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool provides 'real-time' data, which implies freshness and potential rate limits or API constraints, but doesn't elaborate on these aspects. It doesn't mention error handling, authentication needs, data format, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'get'). More context on behavioral traits would help the agent.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Get' (action), 'real-time bus arrivals' (what's retrieved), 'for a specific Winnipeg Transit stop number' (context and parameter). There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the essential purpose and parameter context. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details that would make it fully comprehensive, especially with no annotations to supplement it.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'stop_number' refers to a 'Winnipeg Transit stop number', which clarifies the parameter's domain beyond just being an integer. However, it doesn't provide examples, valid ranges, or format details (e.g., typical stop number length), leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 ('Get real-time bus arrivals'), identifies the resource ('Winnipeg Transit stop number'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'find_stops_near' (which finds stops) or 'plan_trip' (which plans journeys). It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid stop number), exclusions (e.g., not for historical data), or comparisons to siblings like 'plan_journey' or 'get_commute_status'. The agent must infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.

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