Airport search
drives_airport_searchSearch airports for delivery pickup with delivery fee information.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results | |
| query | Yes | Airport name or IATA code to search |
drives_airport_searchSearch airports for delivery pickup with delivery fee information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results | |
| query | Yes | Airport name or IATA code to search |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds context about delivery fee information but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or result structure.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action. Every word is useful, though slightly terse.
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 simple search tool with two parameters, the description gives a hint about output (delivery fees) but omits pagination, sorting, or response format. Adequate but not thorough.
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 100% with adequate descriptions for 'limit' and 'query'. Description adds no extra meaning 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 searches airports and provides delivery fee information, distinguishing it from sibling tools like venue or vehicle search.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention when-not-to-use or specify prerequisites.
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 tool targets a distinct aspect of the rental process: searching by location, vehicles, airports, venues; getting details, availability, reviews, quotes; and host profiles. No two tools overlap in purpose, ensuring clear agent selection.
All tools share the 'drives_' prefix and use snake_case, but the word order varies: some follow verb_noun (drives_get_quote, drives_search_vehicles), others noun_verb (drives_airport_search, drives_location_suggest), and some are noun_noun (drives_vehicle_availability, drives_host_showroom). This inconsistency makes the pattern less predictable.
With 9 tools, the server covers essential rental marketplace operations without excess. Each tool serves a clear role, and the count is well-scoped for its domain.
The tool set comprehensively covers browsing, searching, quoting, and reviewing vehicles, plus location and venue queries. A minor gap is the absence of a tool to create or manage bookings, but the server likely focuses on pre-booking information.