NS Travel Information 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 mentions 'real-time' information and 'returns a list of upcoming departures' which provides basic behavioral context, but doesn't address important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness guarantees, error conditions, or pagination behavior. The description is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence clearly states what the tool does, and the second explains the return format. There's minimal redundancy, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about purpose and return format but lacks important behavioral details. The description covers the 'what' but not the 'how' or constraints. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, it should provide more operational guidance to be truly complete.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't clarify station code formats beyond 'NS Station code', explain UIC code usage, or provide examples for the dateTime parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 departure information'), resource ('trains from a specific station'), and scope ('including platform numbers, delays, route details, and any relevant travel notes'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_arrivals (departures vs arrivals) and get_station_info (departure info vs general station info).

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 implies usage for train departure information, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_arrivals for arrivals or get_travel_advice for route planning. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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