Get headline counts from a GTFS snapshot, including agencies, routes by type, stops, trips, stop_times rows, shape points, and service IDs.
Headline counts: agencies, routes broken down by route type, stops, trips, stop_times rows, shape points, service_ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| snapshot | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only counting operation, and annotations reinforce readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. No side effects are implied or hidden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that lists the exact count categories with no redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple stats tool, the description gives enough context about the returned count categories and the optional snapshot parameter, though the return format/type is not explicitly detailed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'snapshot' is mentioned with a default but not explained; schema coverage is 0%, yet the name and default are self-explanatory in the GTFS snapshot context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides headline counts for key GTFS entities (agencies, routes, stops, trips, stop_times, shapes, service_ids), identifying it as a summary/stats tool distinct from query or feature tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like stl_gtfs_query or stl_gtfs_coverage, but the count-oriented description makes the use case reasonably inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.