Return the server's version, mode (human vs autonomous-agent), API base, and the list of currently-exposed tools. Useful for the LLM to confirm tool-schema compatibility before issuing a sequence of calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by specifying exactly what data is returned (version, mode, API base, tool list), which helps the agent understand the scope of the read operation.
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 concise: two sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence states the action and outputs, the second provides usage context. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (version, mode, API base, tool list). The sibling tools are all search/create, so this metadata tool's role is clear and complete for the agent's needs.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description fulfills that.
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 specific data: server version, mode, API base, and tool list. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource, and it is well-differentiated from sibling tools which are all search/create operations.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'to confirm tool-schema compatibility before issuing a sequence of calls.' While it does not mention when not to use or alternatives, the context makes it clear this is a setup/info tool distinct from others.
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.
Each search tool targets a distinct travel domain (flights, hotels, activities, dining, events, transport), and create_booking_intent handles the booking flow separately. No overlapping purposes; get_capabilities is clearly meta.
All search tools follow a consistent 'search_<domain>' pattern, while the other two tools use verb_noun ('create_booking_intent', 'get_capabilities'). The naming is uniformly predictable and clear.
8 tools is well-scoped for a travel planning server, covering the major travel components (flights, hotels, activities, dining, events, transport) plus booking and capabilities. No redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the full travel planning lifecycle: search across all key categories, then create a booking intent for flight/hotel/trip. Activities/events are intentionally handled after landing on the web, so no critical gaps exist.
