Skip to main content
Glama
tyleryancey

stl-transit

by tyleryancey
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

stl_gtfs_route

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve detailed route info: directions, headsigns, per-service trip counts, and first/last departure times. Supply a GTFS route_id to get schedule specifics.

Instructions

One route in detail: directions, headsigns, per-service trip counts, and the first and last departure time in each direction.

Args: route_id: the GTFS route_id, NOT the number on the front of the bus. Metro's route_ids look like '19731B'; run stl_gtfs_routes with a search term to map a rider-facing number onto one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
route_idYes
snapshotNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond these hints, so a neutral score is appropriate.

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?

Very concise and well-structured. The purpose is stated in one sentence, and the parameter tip is directly embedded without unnecessary wording.

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?

Sufficient for a basic single-route lookup. Output details are not described but an output schema exists, and the description covers the essential purpose and key parameter. Missing snapshot semantics is the main gap.

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?

The route_id parameter is well explained (GTFS ID, not bus number, with lookup tip), but snapshot remains undescribed. Schema provides no descriptions, so partial compensation only.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves details for a single route, including directions, headsigns, trip counts, and departure times. The singular focus distinguishes it from stl_gtfs_routes (plural) though not explicitly named.

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?

Provides guidance on how to obtain the route_id (run stl_gtfs_routes) but no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives. The description implies single-route detail use, but lacks direct comparison or preconditions.

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