Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
鉄道駅LOD MCPサーバー

鉄道駅LOD MCPサーバー

by uedayou
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

駅の乗降客数の年度推移を取得(複数駅まとめて可)

get_station_passengers

Retrieve daily passenger counts for 1–50 Japanese railway stations by fiscal year (2011–2024) in one batch to compare station usage or map passenger trends.

Instructions

指定した駅(1〜50 駅)の 1 日あたりの乗降客数(人/日、2011〜2024 年度)を年度順に返す。出典は国土数値情報 駅別乗降客数データ。複数の駅を比べる・地図に描くときは、駅ごとに呼ばず 1 回にまとめて渡すこと。集計対象の注記(schema:description)がある場合はあわせて返す。各鉄道事業者が独自に算出した値で、統一的な基準に基づくものではない(事業者をまたいだ比較には注意)。value は常に原本の値。記載誤りの可能性がある年度には補正推定値が estimate として併記される。その場合は原本の値を示したうえで補正推定値があることを伝え、使うかどうかをユーザーに確認すること(確認なしに推定値で置き換えない)。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "stations": "<stations>"
    },
    "name": "get_station_passengers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stationsYes駅の URI、または「会社名/路線名/駅名」の配列(最大50件、1件でも可)。駅は会社・路線ごとに別エンティティのため、同じ物理駅でも指定した路線の値が返る。路線の全駅を比べるときは list_stations_on_line の結果をまとめて渡すこと。

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.2

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses the data source, the non-standardized operator basis, the presence of schema:description notes, and a required confirmation workflow when an estimate is returned alongside the original value. It does not describe the response structure in detail, but the caveats and handling rules are unusually rich for a read-only data retrieval tool.

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?

The definition is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds only information that changes how the agent should behave: batching, source caveats, and estimate handling. Each sentence earns its place despite the density.

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?

For a one-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, source, caveats, and the estimate-confirmation workflow well. It could be slightly more explicit about the shape of the returned station/year data, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents the station array, the 1–50 limit, and the company/line/station entity distinction. The description restates the 1–50 range and adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: it returns daily passenger counts for 1–50 specified stations for fiscal years 2011–2024, in year order, sourced from MLIT station passenger data. The metric, scope, and time range are all explicit, so an agent can tell this apart from geometry, line-length, or search siblings without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit usage rule: when comparing multiple stations or drawing them on a map, do not call per station but pass them together in one call. It also warns that cross-operator comparisons are unreliable because each operator calculates values independently, which is exactly the kind of when-to-be-careful guidance an agent needs.

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