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

鉄道駅LOD MCPサーバー

by uedayou

鉄道事業者の一覧を取得

list_railway_operators

Retrieve a list of Japanese railway operator names from linked open data, covering railway companies, tramways, and subway operators, with no parameters required.

Instructions

鉄道駅LOD に収録されている鉄道事業者(鉄道会社・軌道・地下鉄事業者等)の名称を配列で返す(パラメータなし)。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_railway_operators"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (a plain array of names, not objects) and that no inputs are required, which is useful. It omits any note on ordering, approximate size of the result, or whether the source dataset has coverage limits, which are the remaining behavioral facts an agent would want.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating the return type, the resource, and the parameter situation — nothing extraneous. The trailing '(パラメータなし)' mildly restates what the empty schema already shows, keeping it just below full marks.

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 zero-parameter enumeration with no output schema, the description covers what matters: that the result is an array of operator names. It is short but the tool is simple, so only minor details (ordering, expected list size) are missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters and the description confirms this explicitly, so there is nothing further to disambiguate. With 0 params the baseline is 4, and the confirmation that no arguments are accepted is a small positive rather than a gap.

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?

The description names a specific verb+resource: it returns the names of railway operators held in 鉄道駅LOD as an array. It further scopes the resource by exemplifying the operator types covered (railway companies, tramways, subway operators), which is more precise than the bare name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as list_railway_children, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The parenthetical '(パラメータなし)' and the 'returns a list of all operator names' framing imply this is the parameterless entry-point enumeration, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over list_railway_children or search_railway, and no stated prerequisites.

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