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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains how 'origin' and 'destination' arguments are resolved (via OSM for addresses/landmarks, stop numbers, or formatted keys), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists).

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 highly concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a bulleted list explaining argument formats. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It thoroughly explains 'origin' and 'destination' but omits details on 'mode', 'date', and 'time'. The output schema likely covers return values, so that gap is acceptable. However, for a planning tool with siblings, more usage context would improve completeness.

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 description adds significant meaning for 'origin' and 'destination' parameters, detailing acceptable formats (plain text addresses, stop numbers, formatted keys) and resolution methods (OSM). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. It doesn't address 'mode', 'date', or 'time', but with 5 total parameters and 2 well-documented, it provides substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Plan a trip between two points using Winnipeg Transit.' It specifies the verb ('plan'), resource ('trip'), and service provider ('Winnipeg Transit'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'plan_journey' or 'plan_timed_itinerary', which appear related.

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 sibling tools like 'plan_journey' or 'plan_timed_itinerary', nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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