get_seat_reviewsGet user-submitted reviews for a flight, optionally filtered to a specific seat. Shows ratings, comments, seat number, cabin, and helpfulness votes. Free — no auth required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | No | Sort order: 'recent' (default) or 'helpful' (most specific and upvoted first) | |
| seat_number | No | Optional seat number to filter reviews (e.g. '12A') | |
| flight_number | Yes | Flight number, e.g. 'QF1' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / orderAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Sort order: 'recent' (default) or 'helpful' (most specific and upvoted first)",
+ "enum": [
+ "recent",
+ "helpful"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it states the tool is free and requires no authentication, and it lists the review fields returned (ratings, comments, seat number, cabin, helpfulness votes).
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 concise and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated first, followed by output details and an auth note. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the output-field list is slightly verbose given the absence of an output schema.
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 read-only tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, optional filtering, output content, and auth requirements. Minor gaps include no mention of sorting behavior or pagination, but these are low-impact for this tool's 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (flight_number, seat_number, order) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds a small amount of meaning by noting the seat filter is optional, but it does not elaborate on the order parameter or other nuances beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get user-submitted reviews for a flight.' It also mentions the optional seat filter. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like get_seat_info or find_best_seats, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.
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 implies usage by stating what the tool returns, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions that would select this tool over others such as get_seat_info.
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.