get_seat_infoGet detailed information about a specific seat on a flight, including characteristics, cabin class, availability, and pricing. Also renders the interactive seatmap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flight_date | No | Optional flight date in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| seat_number | Yes | Seat number, e.g. '12A', '1F', '32K' | |
| flight_number | Yes | Flight number, e.g. 'QF1' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructive=false; the description adds a non-obvious behavioral side effect—that the tool renders an interactive seatmap—which is useful and not contradicted by annotations. It could further explain dynamic pricing/availability, but the annotations already signal safety.
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 concise sentences. The first front-loads the core purpose and output categories; the second adds a key behavioral detail. No redundant or filler text.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value information; it lists content categories but leaves format ambiguous (e.g., JSON data vs rendered seatmap) and does not clarify the relationship to get_seatmap. It is viable but incomplete for an agent.
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 all parameters already have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond grouping flight_number and seat_number into the notion of a 'specific seat on a flight.'
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?
Description states a specific action ('Get detailed information') on a specific resource ('a specific seat on a flight') and enumerates the data categories (characteristics, cabin class, availability, pricing). It also adds a second function—'renders the interactive seatmap'—which slightly blurs the boundary with sibling get_seatmap, so differentiation is not complete.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_seatmap, find_best_seats, or interactive_seat_finder. The statement about rendering a seatmap implies possible overlap but no alternatives or exclusions are named.
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.