SnowSure — Snow & Ski

Plan a ski road trip

plan_ski_road_trip

Read-onlyIdempotent

Plan a multi-stop ski road trip: picks the top-scoring resorts in a region, orders them into a drivable route (nearest-neighbour, minimal backtracking), allocates your days across stops, estimates each driving leg, and folds in live conditions plus chain-control where covered. Args: region (required), days, optional pass.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	No
`pass`	No	Optional ski pass to limit stops (e.g. epic, ikon)
`region`	Yes	europe \| north-america \| asia \| oceania \| south-america \| alps \| rockies \| japan \| any

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`markdown`	No	Human-readable markdown summary of the tool result (may be omitted when structuredContent carries a typed payload; content[0].text always has the prose).

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context: nearest-neighbor routing, minimal backtracking, day allocation, driving leg estimation, and integration of live conditions and chain control. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is two sentences: first sentence provides a comprehensive functional summary, second lists arguments. It is front-loaded and efficient, though could be slightly more structured with bullet points for clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-stop routing, allocation, estimation, live conditions) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all key behaviors and limitations. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and operation.

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 67%, so baseline is 3. The description restates parameters ('region (required), days, optional pass.') but does not add meaningful new semantics beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters.

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 the tool plans a multi-stop ski road trip, detailing specific operations like picking top resorts, ordering into a drivable route, allocating days, estimating driving legs, and incorporating live conditions. This differentiates it from the sibling 'plan_ski_trip' which likely plans a simpler trip without road routing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when a user wants a road trip with routing and conditions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'plan_ski_trip' or when other trip planning tools are more appropriate.

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

All SnowSure — Snow & Ski tools Inspect

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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool clusters have unclear boundaries: get_resort overlaps with get_resort_info and get_resort_photos, ask_snowdata competes with compare_resorts and the El Niño tools, and get_snow_history / get_season_leaderboard / get_insights cover similar retrospective ground. The descriptions try hard to route agents, but with 45 tools an agent will frequently have to choose between near-equivalent options.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_resort_info, compare_resorts, find_best_powder, book_lodging, save_resort. Minor deviations like ask_snowdata and the very similar get_resort vs get_resort_info names prevent a 5, but overall the naming convention is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

45 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and puts a heavy selection burden on the agent. While the domain is broad, many tools are narrow variations on conditions, history, road data, or trip planning that could be consolidated or exposed as configurable parameters.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers an impressively wide lifecycle: resort discovery, photos, live conditions, forecasts, history, comparisons, passes, flights, lodging, road status, alerts, and user saved resorts. Minor gaps exist such as no lift-ticket booking, no lesson/rental booking, and flight search only produces links rather than a booking flow, but agents can generally complete core snow-trip workflows.

Resources

Need Help?