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" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the field list and the 'shorter' scope, providing useful context beyond the annotation. However, it does not mention any potential quirks like rate limits, response format variations, or empty results, but with read-only annotations this is a minor gap.
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, both highly informative. The first front-loads the purpose and returned fields; the second immediately routes to the alternative when needed. Zero wasted words and no repetition of the schema.
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 single-parameter read-only lookup, the description covers the purpose, the returned fields, and the alternative. The schema handles the parameter format, annotations cover safety, and no output schema is needed for a simple field list. The only slight omission is not describing what happens when no WiFi info exists, but that is not required for correctness in most calls.
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 has 100% description coverage for the single flight_number parameter, with a clear example ('UA123' or 'DL456'). The tool description does not need to add parameter syntax, and the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the semantic load.
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 resource ('flight WiFi'), and the exact fields returned ('provider, confidence, airline, aircraft, and Starlink status'). It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool by naming get_wifi_facts and what it is not (no date, tail number, reasoning). This distinguishes it clearly from similar tools.
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 second sentence gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use get_wifi_facts instead when you need the date, tail number, or reasoning.' This directly tells the agent when to choose an alternative, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's scope.
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.
