mcp-lad-lviv-ua
Timetable API Node
르비우 대중교통 시간표 데이터를 위한 Express 기반 API (읽기 전용 MCP 엔드포인트 포함).
요구 사항
Node.js 22 (
.nvmrc참조)
Related MCP server: GTFOBins MCP Server
로컬 실행
nvm use
make start테스트
nvm use && make testMCP 서버
이 서비스는 Streamable HTTP를 통해 공개 읽기 전용 MCP 엔드포인트를 노출합니다.
MCP 엔드포인트:
/mcp서버 카드:
/.well-known/mcp/server-card.json검색 힌트:
/robots.txt(비표준 주석 힌트)
프로덕션 배포(Cloud Run용 cloudbuild.yaml 참조)는 **api.lad.lviv.ua**에서 REST 및 MCP를 제공합니다. 메인 사이트인 **lad.lviv.ua**는 대중교통 웹사이트입니다(이 저장소는 여전히 API 호스트가 아닌 사용자를 위해 HTML 사이트맵 및 테이블에서 해당 사이트로 연결됩니다). 로컬에서 실행할 때는 자신의 오리진을 사용하세요.
LLM 및 /mcp 흐름
MCP 클라이언트(Claude, Cursor 또는 MCP SDK)는 Streamable HTTP를 통해 POST /mcp로 JSON-RPC 통신을 수행합니다. 도구 핸들러는 LokiJS 시간표 데이터, GTFS SQLite( gtfs 사용), 실시간 GTFS-RT 피드(예: track.ua-gis.com)를 기반으로 REST API와 동일한 Express 작업을 재사용합니다.
graph LR;
Client[LLM or MCP client] -->|JSON-RPC Streamable HTTP| Mcp["POST /mcp"];
Mcp --> Tools[Tool handlers];
Tools --> Actions[Express actions];
Actions --> Loki[(LokiJS)];
Actions --> Gtfs[(GTFS SQLite)];
Actions --> Rt[GTFS-RT upstream];
Loki --> Actions;
Gtfs --> Actions;
Rt --> Actions;
Actions --> Tools;
Tools --> Mcp;
Mcp -->|MCP tool result| Client;라이브 API 사용해 보기
MCP Inspector (로컬): npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector를 실행한 다음, inspector README에서 미리 채워진 전송 및 서버 URL로 UI를 엽니다:
http://localhost:6274/?transport=streamable-http&serverUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.lad.lviv.ua%2Fmcp
Content-Type: application/json과 함께 POST https://api.lad.lviv.ua/mcp를 사용합니다. Streamable HTTP 전송은 MCP 클라이언트가 자동으로 설정하는 추가 헤더가 필요할 수 있습니다. 수동 테스트를 위해서는 MCP SDK가 사용하는 순서(세션 initialize 후 tools/call)를 따르세요. 예시 tools/call 본문 형태:
{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"id": 1,
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"name": "get_stop_realtime",
"arguments": { "stop_id": 101 }
}
}성공적인 도구 응답은 MCP content 항목(type: "text") 내에 문자열화된 JSON을 반환하며, 각 페이로드는 엄격한 UI 계약을 따릅니다:
{
"view": "transit_realtime",
"data": { "...": "tool-specific source data" },
"ui_blocks": [
{ "type": "map", "data": { "...": "map renderer input" } },
{ "type": "arrival_list", "data": { "...": "arrival list renderer input" } }
]
}일관성 규칙: 지도에 렌더링되는 각 차량은 목록 데이터에 일치하는 ETA가 있거나 eta_status: "unassigned"여야 합니다.
노출된 도구
get_stop_realtimeget_route_staticget_route_realtimeget_stop_geometryget_stops_around_location
인자 (JSON):
필드 | 타입 | 필수 |
| 양의 정수 또는 숫자 전용 문자열 | 예 |
결과 예시 (형태만; 값은 업스트림에서 가져옴):
{
"view": "transit_realtime",
"data": {
"stop": { "id": "707", "name": "Стадіон Сільмаш", "lat": 49.84, "lng": 24.03 },
"arrivals": [
{
"route": "T30",
"direction": "Рясівська",
"vehicle_type": "tram",
"arrival_minutes": 4,
"vehicle_id": "tram_123",
"lat": 49.83,
"lng": 24.02,
"bearing": 120
}
],
"updated_at": "2026-01-23T12:00:00Z"
},
"ui_blocks": [
{
"type": "map",
"data": { "center": [49.84, 24.03], "vehicles": [] }
},
{
"type": "arrival_list",
"data": { "arrivals": [] }
}
]
}인자 (JSON):
필드 | 타입 | 필수 |
| 노선 약칭(예: | 예 |
결과 예시 (형태만; 간결함을 위해 정류장 생략):
{
"view": "transit_realtime",
"data": {
"route": {
"name": "T30",
"long_name": "Рясне-2 — Сихів",
"color": "#e81717",
"type": "tram"
},
"stops": [
[
{ "id": "101", "name": "Головний вокзал", "lat": 49.841, "lng": 24.003, "departures": ["05:30", "05:52"] },
{ "id": "707", "name": "Стадіон Сільмаш", "lat": 49.838, "lng": 24.021, "departures": [] }
],
[
{ "id": "707", "name": "Стадіон Сільмаш", "lat": 49.838, "lng": 24.021, "departures": [] },
{ "id": "101", "name": "Головний вокзал", "lat": 49.841, "lng": 24.003, "departures": [] }
]
],
"shapes": [
[[49.841, 24.003], [49.839, 24.012], [49.838, 24.021]],
[[49.838, 24.021], [49.839, 24.012], [49.841, 24.003]]
],
"updated_at": "2026-01-23T12:00:00Z"
},
"ui_blocks": [
{
"type": "map",
"data": {
"center": [49.841, 24.003],
"zoom": 13,
"polylines": [[[49.841, 24.003], [49.839, 24.012], [49.838, 24.021]]],
"stops": [
{ "id": "101", "name": "Головний вокзал", "lat": 49.841, "lng": 24.003 },
{ "id": "707", "name": "Стадіон Сільмаш", "lat": 49.838, "lng": 24.021 }
],
"vehicles": []
}
}
]
}stops[0]은 방향 0(출발), stops[1]은 방향 1(복귀)입니다. departures는 방향 0에 대해서만 채워집니다. shapes는 동일한 2요소 순서를 따릅니다. 지도 블록은 방향 0 폴리라인과 모든 고유 정류장을 마커로 사용합니다.
인자 (JSON):
필드 | 타입 | 필수 |
| 노선 약칭(예: | 예 |
결과 예시:
{
"view": "transit_realtime",
"data": {
"route_name": "T30",
"vehicles": [
{
"id": "tram_123",
"direction": 0,
"lat": 49.838,
"lng": 24.021,
"bearing": 120,
"lowfloor": true
}
],
"updated_at": "2026-01-23T12:00:00Z"
},
"ui_blocks": [
{
"type": "map",
"data": {
"center": [49.838, 24.021],
"zoom": 13,
"vehicles": [
{
"id": "tram_123",
"direction": 0,
"lat": 49.838,
"lng": 24.021,
"bearing": 120,
"lowfloor": true
}
]
}
}
]
}direction은 get_route_static의 stops 배열 인덱스와 일치합니다(0 = 출발, 1 = 복귀). lowfloor: true는 저상 차량임을 나타냅니다. 노선에 현재 활성화된 차량이 없으면 빈 vehicles 배열을 반환합니다.
인자:
필드 | 타입 | 필수 |
| 양의 정수 또는 숫자 전용 문자열 | 예 |
결과 예시:
{
"view": "transit_realtime",
"data": {
"stop": { "id": "707", "name": "Стадіон Сільмаш", "lat": 49.84, "lng": 24.03 },
"routes": [
{
"route": "T30",
"polyline": [[49.84, 24.03], [49.83, 24.02]]
}
]
},
"ui_blocks": [{ "type": "map", "data": { "routes": [] } }]
}지도 지점 근처의 정류장(숫자 코드, 이름, 좌표, 거리)을 반환합니다. map UI 블록을 렌더링하는 호스트(예: ChatGPT)를 위한 것입니다: 여러 정류장 마커와 검색 중심이 포함된 하나의 블록. **GET /closest**와 동일한 백엔드를 사용합니다(아래 참조).
인자 (JSON):
필드 | 타입 | 필수 |
| 숫자, −90…90 | 예 |
| 숫자, −180…180 | 예 |
| 정수, 50…3000 | 아니오 (기본값 1000) |
결과 예시 (형태만):
{
"view": "transit_realtime",
"data": {
"center_lat": 49.84,
"center_lng": 24.03,
"radius_meters": 1000,
"stops": [
{
"id": "707",
"name": "Стадіон Сільмаш",
"lat": 49.841,
"lng": 24.031,
"distance_meters": 120
}
],
"updated_at": "2026-01-23T12:00:00Z"
},
"ui_blocks": [
{
"type": "map",
"data": {
"center": [49.84, 24.03],
"zoom": 15,
"stops": [
{
"id": "707",
"name": "Стадіон Сільмаш",
"lat": 49.841,
"lng": 24.031,
"distance_meters": 120
}
],
"vehicles": []
}
}
]
}지도 줌 레벨은 반경 ≤ 1500m일 때 15, 더 큰 반경(최대 3000m)일 때 14입니다.
보안 모델
공개 읽기 전용(인증 없음).
변경 가능한 도구는 노출되지 않음.
robots.txt는 최선의 검색 힌트일 뿐이며 프로토콜 계약이 아님.
REST API
모든 엔드포인트는 JSON을 반환합니다. :code는 숫자 정류장 코드이고, :name은 노선 약칭(예: T1, 32A) 또는 숫자 외부 ID입니다.
정류장
GET /stops.json
모든 정류장을 코드순으로 정렬된 JSON 배열로 반환.
응답:
{ code, name, eng_name, location: [lat, lng], routes, sign, sign_pdf }의 배열.
(GET /stops는 HTML 테이블을 반환합니다.)
GET /stops/:code
실시간 시간표가 포함된 단일 정류장. 짧은 캐시(5–10초).
선택 사항:
skipTimetableData=1— 실시간 도착 정보 생략(긴 캐시 응답).응답:
{ code, name, eng_name, latitude, longitude, transfers, timetable }.
GET /stops/:code/timetable
정류장에 대한 실시간 시간표만 반환. 짧은 캐시(5–10초).
응답: 시간표 항목 배열.
GET /stops/:code/static
실시간 데이터가 없는 정류장 정보. 긴 캐시(30일).
응답:
{ code, name, eng_name, latitude, longitude, transfers }.
GET /closest?latitude={lat}&longitude={lng}
MCP가 아닌 클라이언트를 위한 근처 정류장 검색( get_stops_around_location과 동일).
선택 사항:
radius— 미터 단위, 50에서 3000 사이로 제한(기본값 1000).응답:
{ code, name, latitude, longitude, distance_meters }의 JSON 배열(거리순 정렬).
노선
GET /routes.json
모든 노선을 약칭순으로 정렬된 JSON 배열로 반환.
응답: 시간표 저장소의 원시 노선 객체.
(GET /routes는 HTML 테이블을 반환합니다.)
GET /routes/static/:name
노선 형태, 정류장 목록 및 메타데이터. 긴 캐시(30일).
응답:
{ id, color, type, route_short_name, route_long_name, stops: [[dir0…], [dir1…]], shapes }.
GET /routes/dynamic/:name
노선의 실시간 차량 위치. 짧은 캐시(10초).
응답:
{ id, direction, location: [lat, lng], bearing, lowfloor }의 배열.
차량
GET /vehicle/:vehicleId
단일 차량의 실시간 위치 및 예정된 정류장 도착 정보. 짧은 캐시(5초).
응답:
{ location: [lat, lng], routeId, bearing, direction, licensePlate, arrivals }.
GET /transport?latitude={lat}&longitude={lng}
지점 반경 1km 이내의 차량. 짧은 캐시(10초).
응답:
{ id, route, vehicle_type, color, location: [lat, lng], bearing, lowfloor }의 배열.
Available Tools
5 toolsget_route_realtimeGet Route RealtimeARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Returns live positions for all vehicles currently running on a route, optimised for map rendering. Use when the user asks "where is my tram/bus right now?" or wants to see all active vehicles on a specific route on a map. Prefer get_stop_realtime when the user is at a stop and wants to know arrival times rather than vehicle positions. Prefer get_route_static when only the route shape or stop list is needed without live data. Requires a route short name (e.g. "T30", "32A") or numeric external ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| route_name | Yes | Route short name (e.g. "T30", "32A") or numeric external ID. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| view | Yes | |
| ui_blocks | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false. Description adds real-time and map rendering context, consistent with annotations. No contradictions, but could mention possible data latency or frequency of updates.
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?
Two sentences plus a note, all valuable. Front-loaded with the main action, then usage guidelines and input format. No wasted words.
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?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and input requirements. Fully sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke.
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?
Only one parameter 'route_name' with 100% schema coverage. Description adds examples ('T30', '32A') and clarifies it accepts short name or numeric external ID, providing more meaning than the schema alone.
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 clearly states it returns live positions for all vehicles on a route, optimized for map rendering. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying use cases like 'where is my tram/bus right now?' versus arrival times at a stop.
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?
Explicitly says when to use this tool vs alternatives: prefer get_stop_realtime for arrival times, get_route_static for route shape/stop list without live data. Also specifies input format requirement (route short name or numeric external ID).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_route_staticGet Route StaticARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Returns static route metadata: short and long name, vehicle type, brand colour, ordered stop lists for both directions, and route polylines (shapes) for map rendering. Use when the user asks which stops a route serves, what a route looks like on a map, or what the scheduled departure times are. Do NOT use this when live vehicle positions are needed — use get_route_realtime instead. Requires a route short name (e.g. "T30", "32A") or numeric external ID; call get_stops_around_location first if you only know a location and need to discover which routes serve it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| route_name | Yes | Route short name (e.g. "T30", "32A") or numeric external ID. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| view | Yes | |
| ui_blocks | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) already indicate safety. Description adds context that data is static and what it includes, but doesn't disclose any hidden behaviors. No contradictions.
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?
Every sentence is purposeful. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidelines, then parameter notes. No redundancy.
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?
For a static data retrieval tool with an output schema (not shown) and sibling tools listed, the description covers all necessary context: what, when, when not, and how to get inputs. Complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description is clear. Description adds value by explaining how to obtain the route name if needed (via get_stops_around_location), which aids tool selection.
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 'Returns' and lists concrete resources: static route metadata, stop lists, polylines. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning when not to use (live positions -> get_route_realtime).
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?
Provides explicit use cases (user asks for stops, map, scheduled times) and non-use cases (live positions) with alternative named. Also gives prerequisite for obtaining route name if unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_stop_geometryGet Stop GeometryARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Returns static map context for a stop: its marker and polylines for every route that serves it. No live data is fetched. Use this when you need to enrich an existing map with route shapes (e.g. overlay polylines alongside a get_stop_realtime map block) or when the user asks to visualise which routes pass a stop without needing live arrivals. Do NOT use this when live arrival times or vehicle positions are needed — use get_stop_realtime instead. Requires a numeric stop ID; call get_stops_around_location first if you only have coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stop_id | Yes | Municipal stop code shown on stop signage (e.g. 707). Accepts a positive integer or an equivalent digit-only string. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| view | Yes | |
| ui_blocks | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds that no live data is fetched and specifies return components (marker, polylines), which is valuable beyond annotations.
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?
Two well-structured sentences, front-loaded, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage guidelines, and prerequisites. Parameter is simple. No gaps identified.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter description. The description reiterates it requires a numeric stop ID and adds cross-reference to get_stops_around_location, but adds minimal new semantic info beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool returns static map context for a stop: marker and polylines for every route. It uses specific verbs and resource, distinguishing from sibling get_stop_realtime.
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?
Explicitly says when to use (enrich map, visualize routes) and when not to (live data needed), with a direct reference to get_stop_realtime as alternative. Also provides prerequisite to call get_stops_around_location if only coordinates are available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_stop_realtimeGet Stop RealtimeARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Returns live arrivals and vehicle positions for a stop, producing both a map UI block and a structured arrival list. Use this as the default tool when the user asks about arrivals, departures, or vehicles at a specific stop. Prefer get_stop_geometry when only static route polylines are needed and live data is irrelevant. Requires a numeric stop ID (shown on stop signage); use get_stops_around_location first if you only have an address or coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stop_id | Yes | Municipal stop code shown on stop signage (e.g. 707). Accepts a positive integer or an equivalent digit-only string. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| view | Yes | |
| ui_blocks | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds that it produces a map UI block and structured list, which is behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences with essential information, front-loaded with purpose, and no extraneous words. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: functionality, usage context, parameter source, and sibling relationships.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining how to obtain the stop ID (from signage) and when to use a different tool for other inputs, exceeding mere schema details.
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 clearly states the tool returns live arrivals and vehicle positions for a stop, specifying both a map UI block and structured arrival list. It distinguishes itself from siblings like `get_stop_geometry` and `get_stops_around_location`.
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?
Explicitly says to use as default for arrivals/departures, prefers `get_stop_geometry` for static data, and suggests `get_stops_around_location` for address/coordinate inputs. Provides clear when-to-use and alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_stops_around_locationGet Stops Around LocationARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Discovers transit stops near a geographic point, returning each stop's numeric code, name, coordinates, and walking distance. Also emits a map UI block with multiple markers for map-capable clients (e.g. ChatGPT). Use this as the first step whenever the user provides an address, place name, or coordinates and you need stop IDs before calling get_stop_realtime or get_stop_geometry. Do NOT use this to fetch arrivals or live vehicle data — it returns stop metadata only. Default radius is 1 000 m; narrow it (e.g. 300 m) for dense urban areas or widen it (up to 3 000 m) for rural locations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | Yes | Decimal latitude of the search centre, WGS84 (e.g. 49.842 for central Lviv). | |
| longitude | Yes | Decimal longitude of the search centre, WGS84 (e.g. 24.031 for central Lviv). | |
| radius_meters | No | Search radius in metres (50–3000, default 1000). Use ~300 for dense urban intersections, up to 3000 for suburban or rural areas. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| view | Yes | |
| ui_blocks | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety profile is clear. Description adds valuable context: emits a map UI block for map-capable clients, default radius is 1000 m, and valid radius range (50–3000). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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?
Description is efficiently structured: first sentence states primary function and added map UI block, second sentence provides usage guidance and exclusions, third sentence offers radius optimization tips. No redundant or superfluous information; every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given that an output schema exists (so return structure need not be described), the description is complete: it covers purpose, when to use, when not to use, and parameter behavior. Context signals (3 params, 2 required, 100% schema coverage, sibling tools) are fully addressed by the description.
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?
Input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no new parameter details but provides usage context: default radius (1000 m), suggested values for dense urban (300 m) vs rural (3000 m), and clarifies that latitude/longitude use WGS84. This added value justifies a score above baseline 3.
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?
Description clearly states the tool discovers transit stops near a geographic point, returning specific metadata (code, name, coordinates, distance) and a map UI block. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_stop_realtime (arrivals) and get_stop_geometry (geometry), ensuring unambiguous purpose.
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?
Explicitly says to use as the first step when needing stop IDs before calling get_stop_realtime or get_stop_geometry, and warns not to use for arrivals or live data. Also provides radius adjustment guidance for dense urban vs rural areas, leaving no ambiguity about when to employ this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
5 tool updates
v1.0.11- Added
get_route_realtime - Added
get_route_static - Added
get_stop_geometry - Added
get_stop_realtime - Added
get_stops_around_location
5 tool updates
v1.0.9- Removed
get_route_realtime - Removed
get_route_static - Removed
get_stop_geometry - Removed
get_stop_realtime - Removed
get_stops_around_location
3 tool updates
v1.0.8- Changed
get_stop_geometry2 fields changed- changed
Input schema / properties / stop_id / anyOfPrevious value: -[ - { - "description": "Numeric municipal stop code (e.g. 707).", - "exclusiveMinimum": 0, - "maximum": 9007199254740991, - "type": "integer" - }, - { - "description": "Municipal stop code as digits-only string (e.g. \"707\").", - "pattern": "^\\d+$", - "type": "string" - } -]New value: +[ + { + "description": "Positive integer stop code (e.g. 707).", + "exclusiveMinimum": 0, + "maximum": 9007199254740991, + "type": "integer" + }, + { + "description": "Stop code as a digits-only string (e.g. \"707\").", + "pattern": "^\\d+$", + "type": "string" + } +] - added
Input schema / properties / stop_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Municipal stop code shown on stop signage (e.g. 707). Accepts a positive integer or an equivalent digit-only string."
- Changed
get_stop_realtime2 fields changed- changed
Input schema / properties / stop_id / anyOfPrevious value: -[ - { - "description": "Numeric municipal stop code (e.g. 707).", - "exclusiveMinimum": 0, - "maximum": 9007199254740991, - "type": "integer" - }, - { - "description": "Municipal stop code as digits-only string (e.g. \"707\").", - "pattern": "^\\d+$", - "type": "string" - } -]New value: +[ + { + "description": "Positive integer stop code (e.g. 707).", + "exclusiveMinimum": 0, + "maximum": 9007199254740991, + "type": "integer" + }, + { + "description": "Stop code as a digits-only string (e.g. \"707\").", + "pattern": "^\\d+$", + "type": "string" + } +] - added
Input schema / properties / stop_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Municipal stop code shown on stop signage (e.g. 707). Accepts a positive integer or an equivalent digit-only string."
- Changed
get_stops_around_location3 fields changed- changed
Input schema / properties / latitude / descriptionPrevious value: -"Center latitude (WGS84)."New value: +"Decimal latitude of the search centre, WGS84 (e.g. 49.842 for central Lviv)." - changed
Input schema / properties / longitude / descriptionPrevious value: -"Center longitude (WGS84)."New value: +"Decimal longitude of the search centre, WGS84 (e.g. 24.031 for central Lviv)." - changed
Input schema / properties / radius_meters / descriptionPrevious value: -"Search radius in meters (default 1000; same cap as the public /closest API)."New value: +"Search radius in metres (50–3000, default 1000). Use ~300 for dense urban intersections, up to 3000 for suburban or rural areas."
2 tool updates
v1.0.5- Added
get_route_realtime - Added
get_route_static
1 tool update
v1.0.4- Removed
get_vehicles_by_stop
4 tool updates
v1.0.0- First observed
get_stop_geometry - First observed
get_stop_realtime - First observed
get_stops_around_location - First observed
get_vehicles_by_stop
TDQS
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: route static vs realtime, stop geometry vs realtime, and stop discovery. Descriptions explicitly disambiguate when to use each, leaving no ambiguity.
All tool names follow the consistent pattern 'get_[resource]_[modifier]' in snake_case, e.g., get_route_realtime, get_stop_geometry. The naming is predictable and easy to understand.
5 tools is well-scoped for a transit information server, covering all essential operations: route static and realtime data, stop static geometry and realtime arrivals, and stop discovery. No excess or deficiency.
The tool surface is complete for the domain: users can discover stops, get realtime arrivals, static route info, route shapes, and live vehicle positions. There are no obvious gaps such as missing CRUD operations or dead ends.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Read-only public transit departures, stop search, and city coverage for bus and train users.
MBTA MCP — Boston real-time transit via the MBTA v3 API (api-v3.mbta.com)
Transitland MCP — global GTFS aggregator
SEPTA MCP — Philadelphia SEPTA real-time transit (www3.septa.org/api, keyless)
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that provides real-time Caltrain schedule information, allowing AI assistants to look up train departures between any stations and access station information using GTFS data.210-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA server that provides seamless access to the GTFOBins database through Claude Desktop, allowing users to query exploitation techniques, search for specific binaries, and explore privilege escalation methods directly from Claude conversations.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables searching for Auckland public transport stops and retrieving real-time transit schedules and timetables using the Auckland Transport API with GTFS standardized data.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceProvides real-time transit data for OC Transpo in Ottawa, including live vehicle positions and trip updates via GTFS-RT feeds. It enables AI agents to monitor arrival delays, schedule changes, and transit telemetry through the Model Context Protocol.2-