Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bus-scheduling-mcp

bus-scheduling-mcp

by uwmyuan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

scheduling_list_plans

List all generated bus scheduling plans to review available options. Access the full set of algorithmically produced schedules for comparison and selection.

Instructions

List all algorithmically generated scheduling plans.

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": "scheduling_list_plans"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all...' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention return format, pagination, authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool without annotation coverage.

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 description is one concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no wasted wording or redundancy, making it highly efficient for a simple list operation.

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?

Given the low complexity (no params, no output schema), the description is brief but does not clarify what a 'scheduling plan' contains or whether results are paginated. While this might be adequate for a simple enumeration, the sibling tools suggest a richer domain, and more context would improve completeness.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds no parameter information, but since none exist, this is acceptable and aligns with the baseline 4 for parameter-free tools.

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 clearly states the tool lists all algorithmically generated scheduling plans, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as scheduling_list_routes by explicitly naming 'plans' rather than 'routes', making the purpose 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like scheduling_list_routes or scheduling_get_route_details, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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