Remove a lounge visit you previously logged with log_lounge_visit. Use list_lounge_visits to find the visit id. Paid feature.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| visit_id | Yes | Id of the logged visit, from list_lounge_visits. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it is a 'Paid feature' (cost/authorization implication) and only affects visits the user logged, not shared records. It does not detail irreversibility, but that is already signaled by destructiveHint.
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?
Three short sentences, each contributing: the action, how to find the id, and the paid-feature caveat. No filler or restatement of the tool name.
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 one-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description plus annotations fully equip the agent: it names the action, the source of the id, the prerequisite, and the paid restriction. Nothing important appears missing for correct invocation.
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 already describes visit_id as 'Id of the logged visit, from list_lounge_visits,' covering 100% of parameters. The description reinforces this by telling the agent to use list_lounge_visits to find the id, but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('lounge visit'), and ties it to a prior action ('previously logged with log_lounge_visit'), so an agent knows exactly what this tool does. It clearly distinguishes from logging and listing, though it doesn't address the similarly named sibling lounge_delete_visit.
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?
Gives explicit instruction to call list_lounge_visits to obtain the visit_id, showing the prerequisite step. It also scopes usage to visits 'previously logged with log_lounge_visit,' implying it is not for arbitrary lounge records. However, it does not mention the near-duplicate sibling lounge_delete_visit or state when to prefer one over the other.
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.
