Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
neshan-mcp

neshan-mcp

by sepehr071
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Neshan public transit directions

ns_transit_route
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find bus, BRT, and metro options between two coordinates, with lines, stops, walking distances, and total fares in Toman for Tehran and other major Iranian cities.

Instructions

Get bus, BRT and metro options between two points on Neshan, with lines, stops, walking and fares.

Mainly Tehran and other big cities. Each option lists legs: walk (metres) or a ride with line, from/to stop, stops count and fare in Toman; fare_toman is the total. No travel time. No option: use ns_route.

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": {
      "origin": "<origin>",
      "destination": "<destination>"
    },
    "name": "ns_transit_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
originYesStart 'lat,lng'.
destinationYesEnd 'lat,lng'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the lower bar applies, and the description still adds real signal: geographic coverage, the explicit limitation 'No travel time', and a fallback path when no transit option exists. It does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or error responses, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The capability statement is front-loaded, and the terse fragments ('No travel time. No option: use ns_route.') compress limitations and fallback into minimal space. The leg/fare sentence is dense shorthand but still readable; a small amount of tightening is possible.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the response, and it does: options contain legs of walk (metres) or ride with line, from/to stop, stop count, and fare in Toman, with fare_toman as the total. Combined with the no-travel-time caveat and the fallback, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% – both origin and destination are documented in the schema as 'lat,lng' strings. The description adds no format, ordering, or validation guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get bus, BRT and metro options between two points on Neshan.' It names the modalities covered (bus, BRT, metro) and the returned artifacts (lines, stops, walking, fares), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling driving-route tool ns_route.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states the applicable context ('Mainly Tehran and other big cities') and gives an explicit fallback rule: 'No option: use ns_route.' That names the alternative and the exact condition that selects it, so the agent doesn't have to infer routing behavior between the two tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools