Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sitp-bogota-mcp

sitp-bogota-mcp

by tamagonocammy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

info_datos

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the current GTFS dataset version, build date, and real-time feed status for Bogotá’s SITP and TransMilenio data.

Instructions

Versión del GTFS usada, fecha de construcción y estado del tiempo real.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "info_datos"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no repetition. The description adds the useful fact that the response reports dataset provenance and real-time health, but says nothing about output shape, units of the timestamp or what 'real-time status' values mean.

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?

A single short sentence with the three returned facts listed in a sensible order and zero filler. Nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is close to sufficient: it tells the agent all three things the call reveals. A note on how the real-time status should be interpreted (e.g. whether true means live data is flowing) would close the remaining gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly describes a parameterless metadata read rather than implying any filtering input.

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 names concrete resources: GTFS version, build date and real-time status, so an agent can tell this is a dataset-metadata tool rather than a routing one. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as info_ruta, which is the only reason it falls short of a 5.

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?

It is a bare noun phrase with no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites and no mention of alternatives. An agent can infer this is a 'check data freshness/real-time availability first' tool, but that inference comes entirely from the field list, not from guidance.

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