Check all configured GTFS feeds and pages, showing agency, region, URL, usability, local snapshot count, and latest fetch time.
List every configured feed and page: agency, region, URL, whether it is usable, how many snapshots exist locally, and when the latest was fetched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 is consistent with the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and adds useful detail about the output fields, including whether each source is usable and snapshot counts. It does not mention error cases or rate limits, but given the simple read-only nature and strong annotations, the behavioral contract is clear and complete enough.
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, well-structured sentence that packs all essential information without redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists the returned fields in a readable order.
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?
The tool is simple and read-only, has no parameters, and the description states exactly what will be listed. Since an output schema is present and annotations already cover safety and idempotency, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter descriptions to evaluate. According to the rubric, zero parameters earns a baseline of 4, and the schema coverage is effectively complete since no inputs need explanation.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('every configured feed and page'). It enumerates the exact fields returned (agency, region, URL, usability, snapshot count, latest fetch), which makes the purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like stl_snapshot_list or stl_gtfs_routes.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as stl_snapshot_list or stl_web_list. There is no mention of appropriate use cases, filtering conditions, or related tools, so an agent must infer when to invoke it from the name and general wording alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.