The link that invites someone onto a trip as a co-editor. Anyone who opens it joins immediately, so it is the whole invite — there is no separate accept step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| journey_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation read-only and idempotent; the description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: anyone who opens the link joins immediately, and there is no separate acceptance step. This clarifies the practical impact of sharing the link without contradicting the annotations.
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 focused sentence with no filler, restating none of the annotations. It front-loads the essential idea and adds one necessary behavioral nuance about the invitation flow.
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 simple single-parameter input, no output schema, and robust annotations, the description gives the agent key behavioral context (immediate join, no accept step) in an economical way. It still omits an explicit statement that the tool returns the link itself, but the purpose remains inferable from name and 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 only parameter, journey_id, has no schema description, and the description itself never explains what value to provide. The phrase 'onto a trip' loosely connects the share link to a journey, but with 0% schema coverage the description should compensate much more explicitly.
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 identifies the resource as the share/invite link for a trip and clarifies its role as a co-editor invitation. It relies on the tool name for the action verb ('get') and uses 'trip' instead of 'journey', so it stops just short of a fully explicit 'returns/retrieves' statement.
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 implies the use case: an agent needs the invite link to add a co-editor, and the link alone is sufficient since there is no separate accept step. It does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like list_journey_members or get_journey, so usage guidance remains inferred rather than prescriptive.
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 resource and action (e.g., create_flight vs create_activity vs create_stay), and descriptions clarify overlaps like stay vs accommodation. The only potential confusion (create_activity covers travel legs) is explicitly explained, so misselection is unlikely.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using standard verbs: create, delete, get, list, search, set, update, add, remove, leave. Nouns are consistently singular and descriptive (passport, journey, stay, flight, accommodation). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
With 36 tools, the count is higher than typical, but the server covers a wide domain: journeys, stays, activities, flights, accommodations, visas, documents, preferences, and sharing. Each entity has CRUD operations plus search and status, so the count is justified, though bordering on heavy.
The tool surface is remarkably complete: full CRUD for every entity (journeys, stays, activities, flights, accommodations, visas), user profile access (get_me), search utilities, sharing controls (join links, member management), and preferences. No obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps; even edge cases like deleting bookings before stays are handled.