List every language served by AirFreightPrice, with native name and URL prefix pattern.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_languages"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the scope ('every language served') and result fields, but it does not comment on output shape, ordering, or side effects. 'List' implies a safe read, yet the description adds no explicit behavior beyond the basic purpose.
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?
A single sentence with no filler: the verb, scope, and expected output fields are front-loaded and every word 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?
For a parameterless list tool with no output schema and no annotations, this definition is complete: an agent can determine when to call it and what the response will convey. No critical information is missing.
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 tool accepts zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage by being empty, so parameter semantics are not a concern. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters, and the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.
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 action (list), a specific resource (every language served by AirFreightPrice), and concrete output fields (native name and URL prefix pattern). This clearly separates it from the sibling tools, which deal with inquiries, airports, carriers, FAQs, rates, routes, and health.
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 explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tools are mentioned. Because the tool is a simple standalone list and none of the siblings are language-related, the intended use is fairly obvious, but the description does not state it directly.
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.