Returns active structured memories for a verified traveler. Use this when you need durable personalization beyond the context already provided.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| travelerId | Yes | Verified traveler ID from the private traveler context. | |
| travelerAssertion | No | Current signed ATA traveler assertion matching travelerId; required on shared transports. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / travelerAssertionAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Current signed ATA traveler assertion matching travelerId; required on shared transports.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful filtering context ('active' memories, 'verified traveler'), but it does not disclose what happens on failure, authentication requirements beyond the schema hint, or open-world variability.
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 two sentences with no filler. The primary function is front-loaded, and the usage guidance earns its place.
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 annotations cover safety and the schema fully documents the parameters, the description is largely complete. It explains the return concept ('active structured memories') since there is no output schema, though it does not describe memory shape or pagination.
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%, so the schema already documents travelerId and travelerAssertion. The description's phrase 'verified traveler' loosely maps to travelerId but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 names a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('active structured memories for a verified traveler'), so the tool's function is immediately clear. It also gives a use-case hint ('durable personalization beyond the context already provided') that helps distinguish it from related memory or traveler tools.
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 provides an explicit 'Use this when...' condition tied to needing durable personalization beyond current context. It does not name an alternative or state a clear when-not-to-use case, but the guidance is concrete enough for an agent to select the tool.
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.