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

路線の駅を(可能なら順序つきで)一覧

list_stations_on_line

Lists every station on a specified railway line in the order recorded by railway station LOD data; branching routes may yield a non-unique order.

Instructions

指定した路線の全駅を、鉄道駅LOD のデータ上の順序で一覧する。分岐を持つ路線では順序が一意でないことがある。

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": {
      "line": "<line>"
    },
    "name": "list_stations_on_line"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lineYes路線の URI、または「会社名/路線名」(例: '東日本旅客鉄道/山手線')。

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.2

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait — results follow the LOD data order and that order may not be unique for branching lines. It does not describe the shape of the returned records or whether any line input may yield an empty result, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Two short sentences: the primary behavior first, then the ordering caveat. Nothing redundant or padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool this covers what the tool does and the ordering nuance, which is the main risk in calling it. With no output schema, though, an agent still cannot tell what a station entry contains (name only? URI? coordinates?), leaving a meaningful 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents both the URI form and the '会社名/路線名' format with an example. The description adds no further constraint or format detail beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('一覧する' + 路線の全駅) with clear scope: all stations on the given line, returned in the LOD data order. It is not explicitly differentiated from siblings like find_nearest_stations or search_railway, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of how to obtain a line URI (the likely prerequisite given the schema example), and no comparison with alternatives such as find_nearest_stations or find_rail_network_path. The reader must infer that this is the lookup for enumerating a line's stops.

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