bart_advisoriesGet current BART service advisories, delays, and elevator/escalator status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| advisories | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "advisories": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "description": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "expires": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "posted": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "smsText": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "station": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "station",
+ "type",
+ "description",
+ "smsText",
+ "posted",
+ "expires"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "advisories"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool's safe, read-only nature is known. The description adds the notion of 'current' data and the specific scope of advisories/status, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as response format, rate limits, or fallback when no advisories exist. It is consistent with annotations and adds minimal context beyond 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a clear action verb ('Get') and explicit objects. There is no waste, and the structure immediately conveys the tool's purpose.
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's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present, annotations provided), the description fully covers what the agent needs to invoke it correctly. It identifies the key content areas (advisories, delays, elevator/escalator status) and the timeliness ('current'), making it a complete and self-sufficient 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. With an empty input schema and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The lack of parameters is fully represented, and the description does not claim or imply any parameters.
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's action ('Get') and target (current BART service advisories, delays, and elevator/escalator status). However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tool 'bart_status_summary', which likely overlaps in the general status domain, though the mention of elevator/escalator adds specificity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bart_status_summary' or 'bart_departures'. There are no explicit use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but bart_advisories and bart_status_summary both relate to service status, and bart_trip includes fare information alongside bart_fare. Descriptions help clarify the intended use of each, so the overlap is minor.
All tools consistently use the 'bart_' prefix followed by a descriptive noun phrase in snake_case (e.g., bart_stations, bart_fare, bart_trip). This creates a predictable and uniform naming pattern.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a transit information server, covering station lookup, departures, advisories, fares, and trip planning without unnecessary redundancy or bloat.
The tool set comprehensively covers the core BART transit needs: station discovery, real-time departures, trip planning, fare calculation, and service advisories. No obvious gaps exist for typical transit-related queries.