Airport detail including runways and frequencies.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"icao": "<icao>"
},
"name": "get_airport"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| icao | Yes | ICAO/IATA/local code. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the returned content (runways, frequencies), implying a read-only lookup. It says nothing about behavior on an unknown or ambiguous code, whether code types are resolved heuristically, or whether results are cached or paginated.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, naming the resource first and the extra payload second. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, which costs little on this dimension.
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 one-parameter read tool this is nearly adequate, and with no output schema the mention of runways and frequencies is a useful hint at the response shape. It still leaves an agent without guidance on invalid or unknown code handling and on the relationship to the search siblings.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's own description already says 'ICAO/IATA/local code', so the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.
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?
States a specific resource (airport) and enumerates the payload (runways, frequencies), so the agent knows this is a detail lookup rather than a search. It never contrasts itself with search_airports or search_airports_near_zip, so the differentiation is implicit from the name rather than stated.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus the sibling search tools, and no prerequisite such as requiring a known ICAO/IATA/local code. The agent must infer that this is the by-code lookup counterpart to search_airports.
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.