Skip to main content
Glama
paulxcz

redbus-mcp

by paulxcz
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: buscar_ciudades retrieves city IDs, buscar_buses searches for buses, and detalle_servicio gets detailed seat maps. No overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools use Spanish and follow a verb_noun pattern except detalle_servicio which is noun_noun, creating a minor inconsistency. However, the naming is readable and descriptive.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools cover the core data retrieval workflow (lookup city, search buses, get details) for a bus information service. The count is appropriate, though slightly minimal.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools support finding cities, searching buses, and obtaining seat details, but lack booking functionality and advanced filters. Coverage is adequate for basic search but incomplete for a full booking lifecycle.

  • Average 4.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns numeric IDs and also terminals/areas for each city, which is adequate for a read-only search tool. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits, which could be relevant.

    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 description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and a necessary contextual note. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

    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?

    Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (ID and terminal/area info) and provides context with the sibling tool 'buscar_buses'. No additional details are necessary for an agent to use it effectively.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter names and descriptions. The text description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, mainly connecting the parameters to the overall purpose. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    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 clearly states the tool's purpose: search for cities/terminals in Peru by name and return numeric IDs. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'buscar_buses' by explaining that the latter uses city IDs, making the purpose and necessity clear.

    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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool: before 'buscar_buses' because that tool uses city IDs. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like 'detalle_servicio', but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to understand the typical workflow.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the return content (seat map, boarding points) but does not mention error handling, side effects, or data freshness. For a read operation, it is adequate but could be more forthcoming.

    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?

    Two sentences: first explains purpose, second covers prerequisites. No redundant information, front-loaded with purpose. Every part earns its place.

    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?

    Given 7 parameters, 5 required, and no output schema, the description covers return structure (seat map fields, boarding points with times/addresses) and prerequisites. Could mention error scenarios or pagination, but overall complete enough for an action.

    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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value beyond schemas by explaining how to obtain IDs ('obtenido de 'buscar_buses') and constraints on 'fecha' (must be same as search, today or future). Defaults for 'max_asientos' and 'solo_disponibles' are also clarified.

    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 clearly states the verb 'Devuelve' and the resource 'detalle de un servicio de bus concreto', specifying that it returns seat map details and boarding/alighting points. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'buscar_buses' which is for searching routes.

    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?

    Explicitly states prerequisites: 'Requiere routeId, operatorId y los IDs de ciudad que entrega 'buscar_buses'. This tells the agent when to use this tool (after searching buses) and implies it is not for initial search. No explicit when-not-to-use, but clear enough.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's return values (company, bus type, schedules, prices, etc.) and that it is a read-only search operation. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a simple search tool, the transparency is adequate.

    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?

    Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a concise list of return values and usage guidance. Well-structured and efficient.

    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?

    Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and the tool's complexity, the description is complete: it covers the action, parameters, return values, and how to chain with detalle_servicio. No missing context for correct invocation.

    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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that origen/destino accept names or IDs, and by detailing the output fields, including how to use results with detalle_servicio. This adds value beyond the schema.

    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?

    Description clearly specifies it searches for interprovincial buses in Peru via RedBus for a given route and date. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (buscar_ciudades for city search, detalle_servicio for details) by explicitly mentioning that the results contain routeId/operatorId for use with detalle_servicio.

    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?

    Description indicates when to use (for route and date) and provides a usage hint about using detalle_servicio for more details. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond the implied sibling relationship.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

redbus-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

redbus-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/paulxcz/redbus-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server