Skip to main content
Glama

Bart

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Bart Trip Planner

bart_trip_planner
Read-onlyIdempotent

Plan a BART trip between two Bay Area stations — the next trains from origin to destination with departure and arrival times, trip duration, legs (line, transfer stations, bikes), and the fare (Clipper and discount prices). Covers trips like SF to Oakland, Embarcadero to SFO airport, Berkeley to Millbrae. Stations accept 4-letter codes or names. Example: bart_trip_planner({ from: "Embarcadero", to: "SFIA" })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesDestination station — code or name, e.g. "SFIA" or "SFO airport"
fromYesOrigin station — code or name, e.g. "EMBR" or "Embarcadero"
tripsNoHow many upcoming trips to return, 1-4 (default 4)
_apiKeyNoOptional: your own BART API key (defaults to the BART public key)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "from": "EMBR",
+    "to": "SFIA"
+  },
+  {
+    "from": "Downtown Berkeley",
+    "to": "Powell",
+    "trips": 2
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the output contents (times, fare, legs) and input flexibility (codes/names). 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loading purpose and output, then providing an example. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns and how inputs work. It could mention default trips or optional API key, but overall it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description reinforces input formats with examples but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 it plans a BART trip between two stations, specifying return details like departure/arrival times, duration, legs, and fare. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bart_departures by focusing on end-to-end trips.

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 description gives examples of typical trips but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like bart_departures or bart_advisories. Usage is implied but lacks explicit 'when-not-to' or alternative guidance.

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

All Bart toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the three ask_pipeworx variants (stable, beta, grounded) overlap significantly in functionality, as do the Polymarket tools (bet_research, arbitrage, edges, etc.), which could cause an agent to misselect without careful reading of descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming follows multiple styles: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), domain first (polymarket_arbitrage, bart_departures), and single words (remember, forget). There is no consistent pattern, making the set feel disjointed.

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is on the heavy side for a single server. While each tool has a defined role, the count suggests potential for consolidation (e.g., merging ask_pipeworx variants or Polymarket tools). The server's broad scope partially justifies the count.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of functionalities: structured querying, entity lookup, comparison, fact-checking, subscription management, memory, and domain-specific tools for BART and Polymarket. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct API for some data sources), but overall it feels comprehensive.

Resources