List currently-active points sales: buy-points promos (airline + hotel) and transfer bonuses across credit-card and loyalty programs. No auth required. Useful as a starting point when a user asks 'what's a good deal right now?'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| program | No | Filter to a single program (e.g. 'Avios', 'Marriott Bonvoy') | |
| category | No | Filter (default: all) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'List currently-active points sales' and 'No auth required,' strongly implying a safe read-only operation. However, annotations include destructiveHint: true, which contradicts that implication and also conflicts with readOnlyHint: true. This is a direct annotation contradiction.
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 compact and well-structured: it leads with the main function, then adds auth and use-case context. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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, optional-filter list tool, the description gives sufficient calling context: what it lists, a clear trigger phrase, and auth requirements. The conflicting destructiveHint annotation introduces ambiguity, and there is no output schema, so a fully complete picture is not achieved.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both program and category parameters. The description adds thematic context by mentioning airline, hotel, credit-card, and loyalty programs, but it does not add meaningful parameter-level 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?
The description clearly states a specific action and resource: 'List currently-active points sales' for buy-points promos and transfer bonuses. It does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like get_buy_points_pricing or compare_transfer_options, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
It gives clear usage context: 'Useful as a starting point when a user asks "what's a good deal right now?"' and notes that no auth is required. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it is not a 5.
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.
