Ferryhopper

Search Trips (v2)

search_trips_v2

Read-only

Get a list of available ferry trips between two ports on a specific date. Supports round-trip searches when a return date is provided. Availability flags (cabin, vehicles, pets, e-ticket) are reported per segment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	Yes	Departure date in ISO format YYYY-MM-DD (e.g. 2026-03-15).
`returnDate`	No	Return date in ISO format YYYY-MM-DD. When provided, the search returns round-trip booking solutions pairing an outbound and return trip.
`arrivalLocation`	Yes	Arrival location as a human-readable name or search term (e.g. city, port name), not a port code.
`departureLocation`	Yes	Departure location as a human-readable name or search term (e.g. city, port name), not a port code.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tripsById`	Yes	Lookup of every trip (one direction of travel) referenced anywhere in bookingSolutions, keyed by trip id. Trip data lives here once even if the same trip appears in multiple booking solutions — resolve the ids in bookingSolutions[].trips against this object rather than expecting inline trip data.
`bookingSolutions`	Yes

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds that availability flags (cabin, vehicles, pets, e-ticket) are reported per segment, which is useful behavioral context. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not carry the full safety burden. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or that results may change (though openWorldHint covers the latter).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose, then add round-trip and per-segment details. No filler or redundant repetition of schema info.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers primary functionality, round-trip behavior, and availability flags. Minor gaps like pagination or ordering are not addressed but are not critical for basic invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (date, returnDate, departureLocation, arrivalLocation) already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what's in the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns available ferry trips between ports on a date, with round-trip support and per-segment availability flags. It is specific on the resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_trips', so the v2 distinction is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the description: it supports round-trip when a return date is provided, which hints at when to use it over a one-way search. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus 'search_trips' or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Ferryhopper tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool serves a distinct purpose (ports, connections, disruptions, trip search, trip details), but the presence of both search_trips and its deprecated v2 creates overlap. The clear deprecation note mitigates ambiguity, so it's mostly distinct.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_direct_connections_for_ports, get_disruptions, get_ports, search_trips, search_trips_v2). However, trip_details swaps the order to noun_noun, which deviates from the established convention.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools well cover the domain of ferry travel information: port lookup, route discovery, trip search (with v2 supporting round-trips), trip details, and disruptions. No redundancy or bloat; each tool earns its place.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the key informational workflows: finding ports, routes, trips, and details, plus disruption alerts. It lacks booking functionality, but the server's purpose appears to be planning/quoting rather than booking, so the gap is acceptable.

Resources

Need Help?