stl-transit

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

stl_assert_run

Read-onlyIdempotent

Run assumption checks on the current transit feed, returning pass, fail, or skip with observed values to diagnose issues immediately.

Instructions

Evaluate the assumption suite against the current feed.

Every result carries the OBSERVED value beside the threshold, so a failure is actionable without a second call: "stop_code coverage 0.982, threshold 0.99" tells you how bad it is, "FAIL" does not.

Three outcomes, not two. skip means the measurement could not be taken -- a stability check with no baseline to compare against has not been performed, and reporting that as a pass would be a lie.

Args: only: assumption ids to run. Omit for all. baseline: snapshot id or pin name for the stability assumptions (stop_ids_stable, rail_route_ids_stable). Without it those skip.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`only`	No
`baseline`	No
`snapshot`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: failures include observed values, and skip is used when a measurement cannot be taken. This is consistent with the annotations and gives the caller a clear model of outcomes.

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 text is compact and well structured: a one-sentence purpose, two brief outcome clarifications, and a labeled Args block. The example ('stop_code coverage 0.982, threshold 0.99') is valuable and the prose does not feel padded.

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?

With three optional parameters and no schema-level descriptions, the description covers the main invocation details for 'only' and 'baseline', but the undocumented 'snapshot' parameter leaves a caller without enough information to know when or why to pass it. Output semantics are well described, so the primary gap is parameter completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description explains 'only' and 'baseline' well, including defaults and skip behavior, but it completely omits the 'snapshot' parameter that appears in the schema. Since there are no per-parameter descriptions in the schema, this is a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 opening sentence clearly states the action: 'Evaluate the assumption suite against the current feed.' It also clarifies non-obvious output semantics (observed values and skip), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling assert list/explain tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The Args section provides concrete usage guidance: omit 'only' to run all assumptions, and provide 'baseline' for stability assumptions or those checks will skip. It does not explicitly contrast with stl_assert_list or stl_assert_explain, but the operational conditions are clear enough for invocation.

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

Deploy Server