Returns the official ATA company mission and description. Call this when a user asks what ATA is, what we do, our vision, or about the company.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. Description adds only that it returns 'official' content, but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond 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?
Two concise sentences: one states purpose, one gives usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action. Every sentence adds value.
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, description could hint at return type (e.g., 'returns a string with the mission text'). However, for a simple informational query, the description is sufficient. No missing critical context for the agent to use this tool correctly.
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?
Tool has zero parameters. According to guidelines, baseline is 4 for no parameters. Description does not need to add parameter information, and schema coverage is 100% trivially.
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?
Description clearly states it returns the official ATA company mission and description, with specific usage scenarios (user asks what ATA is, vision, company). Distinct from all siblings which are unrelated (bookings, quotes, properties, etc.).
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?
Explicitly tells when to call: 'when a user asks what ATA is, what we do, our vision, or about the company.' Does not mention when not to call or alternatives, but no sibling provides similar functionality, so it's clear this is the only tool for company info.
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.
Multiple search tools (search_buildings, search_property_catalog, search_network_availability) and detail tools (get_building_details, get_property_details, get_stays_in_building) have overlapping boundaries, though descriptions clarify date and availability distinctions. The verification/handoff tools are more clearly separated but still numerous.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_*, get_*, search_*, start_*, verify_*). There are no mixed casing conventions or vague generic verbs, making the set predictable and easy to scan.
With 22 tools, the server is on the heavy end of a typical MCP scope, though each tool has a defined purpose. Several narrow status and discovery helpers inflate the count, but the overall count is not yet extreme.
The booking lifecycle is incomplete: create_quote and create_provisional_booking exist, but there is no cancel, update, or explicit payment action, and get_reservation_status explicitly cannot change or cancel a reservation. Search and verification are well covered, but missing booking mutations will cause agent dead ends.