UberSync MCP Server

Get Trip Details

get_trip_details

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve complete trip details including route, driver, category, timestamps, payment method, and receipt using a trip ID.

Instructions

Get the route, driver, category, timestamps, payment method, and receipt for a trip.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tripId": "<tripId>"
    },
    "name": "get_trip_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tripId`	Yes	Trip ID returned by trip history

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's job is lighter. It adds value by specifying the return contract — the exact trip fields an agent can expect — which is especially useful given there is no output schema. It does not mention errors or prerequisites, but the safety profile is fully covered by annotations.

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 a single clean sentence with no filler. The key return fields are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the agent's understanding of what the tool does.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core return values and the annotations cover safety behavior. However, the environment contains many similarly named sibling tools, and the description lacks explicit differentiation or usage context, leaving some ambiguity about when this is the right tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter tripId is already documented as 'Trip ID returned by trip history.' The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a trip') and enumerates the exact contents: route, driver, category, timestamps, payment method, and receipt. This helps differentiate it from receipt-only and fare-only siblings, though it does not explicitly name any alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings like get_trip_receipt, get_fare_breakdown, or get_ride_details. The description states what the tool returns but not the conditions that should lead an agent to select it or exclusions that would point to alternatives.

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