Track a flight status including gate, terminal, delays. Scans calendar for upcoming flights automatically. Use flight number like DL1425 not confirmation number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flight | No | Flight number e.g. DL1425, AA1234. Leave empty to scan calendar. | |
| scan_calendar | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses the calendar-scanning behavior and the required input format, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what data sources are used, or any potential side effects. Given the lack of annotations, this is a moderate level of disclosure.
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 long and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence contributes meaningful information: what the tool does, its automatic calendar scan, and a crucial input clarification. There is no superfluous content.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, input format, and the automatic calendar scan. It is slightly incomplete regarding the behavior when both parameters are used together or the exact output structure, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward tracking tool.
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 provides a description for the 'flight' parameter (including the 'leave empty to scan calendar' note), so the description's addition of 'not confirmation number' adds value. However, the 'scan_calendar' parameter is only an enum with no schema description, and the tool description does not explicitly explain its role. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves a gap for the second parameter.
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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Track') and resource ('flight status'), and lists key information provided (gate, terminal, delays). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'track_packages' because it focuses on flights and even clarifies the input format (flight number vs confirmation number).
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 gives contextual usage guidance: it can scan the calendar for upcoming flights automatically, and explicitly tells the user to use a flight number like 'DL1425' rather than a confirmation number. This establishes when to use the tool (for flight tracking) and provides a clear input instruction, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives beyond the flight/package distinction.
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.
Many tools are duplicated across services (e.g., get_inbox vs get_outlook_inbox vs get_unified_inbox; create_calendar_event vs create_outlook_event), causing confusion. Summary tools like catch_me_up, morning_briefing, and weekly_preview overlap significantly in function. The sheer number of similar-sounding tools makes selection error likely.
Names generally follow a verb_noun pattern, but verbs are inconsistent (get, check, lookup, fetch, etc.) and some tools use service-specific prefixes (hubspot_, sf_, qb_) while others do not. Mixed conventions like email_action vs send_email and append_to_doc vs append_to_excel reduce clarity, but the overall pattern is still readable.
107 tools is far beyond the typical scope for a single server, making it difficult for an agent to navigate and choose appropriately. The count feels like a kitchen-sink collection of every possible integration rather than a curated set, severely impacting usability.
The server covers a wide range of domains (email, calendar, contacts, documents, CRM, finance, messaging), but there are notable gaps like no delete for contacts or files, no update for Slack messages, and no way to list all documents. Core workflows exist for most areas, but depth is inconsistent.