Winnipeg City MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions combining bus arrivals and weather, which hints at data aggregation, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic function.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first in two sentences. The second sentence adds helpful context without being verbose. However, the lack of parameter information slightly reduces efficiency, as it could integrate key details more seamlessly.

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 moderate complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete for basic understanding. However, with no annotations and low parameter coverage, it lacks sufficient detail on usage scenarios, behavioral aspects, and parameter meaning, making it only minimally adequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It does not mention the 'stop_number' parameter at all, offering no semantic context beyond what the schema provides. This leaves the parameter's purpose and usage unclear, failing to add value.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get bus arrivals combined with current weather conditions.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resources ('bus arrivals' and 'weather conditions'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_bus_arrivals'—the addition of weather is implied but not contrasted.

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?

Usage is implied through the example scenario ('deciding if you need a parka or just a light jacket while waiting'), suggesting it's for commute planning with weather considerations. No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_bus_arrivals' or 'plan_journey' is provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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