get_seatmapGet the seat map for a flight from our database. Shows all seats, cabin classes, characteristics, and availability as both text and an interactive visual seatmap. Returns cached data — for fresh/updated data, use search_flight (sign in via OAuth).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flight_date | No | Optional flight date in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| flight_number | Yes | Flight number including airline code, e.g. 'QF1', 'AA716', 'BA178' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the data is cached (potential staleness), output is both text and interactive visual, and the source is a database. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.
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 sentences with no filler. The core function and output are front-loaded, followed by the cache caveat and alternative. Every sentence earns its place.
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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the output format, the data scope, the caching behavior, and how to get fresh data. An agent has all the context needed to call it correctly.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with explicit formats and examples for both flight_number and flight_date. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 specific verb and resource ('Get the seat map for a flight from our database') and details exactly what is shown (all seats, cabin classes, characteristics, availability as text and visual seatmap). This scope distinguishes it from siblings like get_seat_info and the fresh-data search_flight.
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 explicitly names search_flight as the alternative for fresh/updated data and states the condition ('Returns cached data'), making it clear when to select this tool vs its sibling. This provides an explicit when/when-not routing decision.
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.
Alerts, search, and reviews are clearly distinct, but find_best_seats, interactive_seat_finder, get_seat_info, and get_seatmap all render interactive seatmaps and overlap in purpose. find_best_seats and interactive_seat_finder are especially hard to distinguish despite minor differences in preferences.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern like create_seat_alert, list_seat_alerts, get_seat_reviews, and search_flight. The main deviations are interactive_seat_finder, which uses a noun phrase instead of a verb, and get_seatmap as a compound rather than get_seat_map.
10 tools is a reasonable size for a flight seatmap server covering seat maps, search, alerts, reviews, and discovery. The count is slightly less clean because interactive_seat_finder largely duplicates find_best_seats, but the overall scope is still manageable.
The core workflow of searching flights, viewing seatmaps, inspecting seats, finding best seats, and managing seat alerts is well covered. Minor gaps include no way to update a seat alert and no way to submit or edit seat reviews, but these are workable limitations.