Shorter WiFi lookup for a flight number: provider, confidence, airline, aircraft, and Starlink status. Use get_wifi_facts instead when you need the date, tail number, or reasoning.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flight_number | Yes | IATA flight number, e.g. "UA123" or "DL456" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description calls this a 'lookup,' implying a non-destructive read, but the annotations include destructiveHint: true. The description does not clarify or disclose this contradiction, and it adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, rate limits, or availability. Because the description conflicts with the annotation set, this dimension scores 1.
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 first sentence front-loads the purpose and output fields, and the second sentence concisely routes to the alternative tool.
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 simple one-parameter lookup, the description covers scope and the main returned fields, and it routes to a richer sibling. However, the unresolved destructiveHint: true annotation undermines the agent's ability to fully trust that this is a safe read-only call, and there is no output schema or explicit read-only statement to compensate.
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 fully documents the single required parameter, flight_number, with an IATA format example. The description's mention of 'flight number' adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema description coverage.
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 states a specific verb ('lookup'), a specific resource ('flight number' WiFi), and lists the returned fields: provider, confidence, airline, aircraft, and Starlink status. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_wifi_facts by noting what that alternative provides.
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 to use get_wifi_facts when the date, tail number, or reasoning is needed. This gives the agent a clear routing condition and identifies the relevant alternative, satisfying the when-to-use versus when-not-to-use requirement.
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.
