Get full details for a single card, including all multipliers, all benefits, welcome bonus, and source URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Card id, e.g. "amex-gold-us". Use list_cards to discover ids. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'Get full details' which clearly indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the annotations declare destructiveHint=true. This direct contradiction between the description and annotations means the agent cannot trust the safety profile of the tool. The description does not add any behavioral context beyond the annotations, and the conflict makes this severely deficient.
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, front-loaded sentence that lists the specific information returned. There is no unnecessary verbosity or filler; every word contributes to clarity.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned data (multipliers, benefits, welcome bonus, source URL), giving an agent a clear expectation of the response. The required parameter is fully covered in the schema. The only gap is the unresolved contradiction with the destructiveHint annotation, but that affects trust more than invocation completeness.
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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, including an example ('amex-gold-us') and a directive to use list_cards to discover ids. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get full details for a single card' with a specific resource (card) and lists the exact data points included (multipliers, benefits, welcome bonus, source URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cards_list_cards (which would return a list) and cards_compare_cards (which compares multiple cards).
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 usage when full details of a specific card are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. It does not reference any sibling tools or mention scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate.
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.
Several tools are near-duplicates (log_lounge_visit vs lounge_mark_lounge_visited, delete_lounge_visit vs lounge_delete_visit, audit_hotel_folio vs audit_marriott_folio) and the award-chart tools (get_pricing, get_program_rates, get_partner_award_options, get_program_partner_chart) have unclear boundaries. The three discover_more_flight_tools variants and overlapping lounge/portfolio listers compound the ambiguity, so an agent can easily pick the wrong one.
Most tools use snake_case verb_noun names and many have consistent prefixes (cards_, lounge_, fs_, sw_), but prefixes are applied inconsistently: log_lounge_visit/delete_lounge_visit sit outside the lounge_ prefix while equivalent lounge_* tools exist, and fs_search_flight references a non-existent search_flight. The broad get_/list_/search_ verbs are predictable, but the mixed domain-prefix style and duplicate concepts hurt coherence.
136 tools is far beyond a well-scoped server and bundles at least eight distinct domains (award search, cards, hotels, lounges, seatmaps, wifi, Viator, feedback). Many tools could be split into separate MCPs without loss of coherence, and the sheer count makes selection and prompt overhead prohibitive.
The core award-travel domain is well covered: bookings, hotels, points balances, statuses, vouchers, monitors, trips, and cards all have lifecycle CRUD, plus search and reference tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g. no true delete for standing orders, no single get for route monitors, and the Viator pair is an isolated mini-domain), but agents can generally complete workflows without dead ends.
