Search airports by code/name/city. Returns ICAO/IATA codes + coordinates.
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": {
"q": "<q>"
},
"name": "search_airports"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search text, e.g. "teterboro" or "KTEB". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it does at least signal a read-only lookup returning codes and coordinates, which is more than nothing. It leaves unstated whether matching is fuzzy or exact, how results are ordered or capped, and whether a single match or a list is returned.
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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the searchable fields and the return shape front-loaded. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the input domain and sketches the return payload well enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is result-set behavior (ordering, truncation, ambiguity handling), which is minor at this complexity.
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 q is fully documented in the schema with its own examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces that codes, names and cities are all valid inputs, but adds no matching rules or input normalization details beyond that.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Search airports") plus the searchable fields (code/name/city) and a hint at the return payload. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_airports_near_zip or get_airport, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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?
"Search airports by code/name/city" implies the input shape but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. There is no mention that lookup by exact identifier belongs to get_airport or that location-based search belongs to search_airports_near_zip, both of which are plausible confusions.
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.