WiFi providers an airline uses fleet-wide, plus a fleet summary and whether WiFi is free. Use when the question is about the airline rather than one flight.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| airline_code | Yes | IATA airline code, e.g. "UA" for United, "DL" for Delta |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by describing a read-only lookup. It adds useful output details (fleet summary, free status) but doesn't address edge cases like unknown airline codes or data freshness. The internal annotation conflict between readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=true is not contradicted by the description itself.
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 sentences with no fluff: the first states what the tool returns, the second gives the usage condition. Both sentences are necessary and the core purpose is front-loaded.
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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the main selection criterion and the key output content. It could be more explicit about return structure, but the scope distinction from flight-level tools is clear and sufficient 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 input schema fully documents airline_code with format examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb and resource: returning the WiFi providers an airline uses fleet-wide, plus a summary and free status. The phrase 'fleet-wide' plus 'rather than one flight' distinguishes this from flight-level tools like sw_get_flight_wifi.
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 explicitly says 'Use when the question is about the airline rather than one flight,' which gives a direct selection condition and implicitly rules out flight-specific alternatives. This is sufficient guidance for an agent choosing among the many sibling tools.
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.
