get_shuttle_scheduleRetrieve official SKS shuttle and ring timetables and stop lists to plan campus travel, check routes, and verify schedules by route or day type.
Read official SKS shuttle/ring timetables and stop lists (public).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| route | No | ||
| day_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact, that the data is public/no-auth, but says nothing about refresh cadence, caching, or how route/day_type affect results.
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?
A single, tightly written sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, with two entirely undocumented parameters and no usage context, an agent lacks enough to invoke the tool confidently.
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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters: 'route' and 'day_type' have no descriptions, no enums, and no format hints. The description mentions 'timetables and stop lists' but never explains the meaning, accepted values, or format of either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb (Read) and resource (SKS shuttle/ring timetables and stop lists), which is a unique subject among siblings like get_cafeteria_menu or get_sports_facility_hours. It is clear what the tool returns, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The '(public)' tag is the only contextual cue, implying no login is needed, but nothing tells the agent when this is the right call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.