NS Travel Information 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. It discloses behavioral traits such as the types of information returned (maintenance work, unexpected disruptions, alternative transport options, etc.) and filtering capabilities, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. It adequately describes the tool's function without contradicting any annotations.

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 and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and subsequent sentences adding useful details about return values and filtering options. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, what information it returns, and filtering options. However, it could be more complete by detailing output structure or error cases, though this is mitigated by the straightforward nature of the tool.

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 documents both parameters (isActive and type) fully. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning filtering for 'active disruptions' and 'specific disruption types', but does not provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive information about current and planned disruptions on the Dutch railway network'), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_arrivals, get_departures, or get_travel_advice by focusing specifically on disruption information rather than schedules, pricing, or general advice.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Get comprehensive information about current and planned disruptions'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. It implies usage for disruption-related queries without excluding other scenarios.

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