All current FAA delay programs nationwide (ground stops, ground delay programs, airspace flow programs, arrival/departure delays, closures) sorted by severity, with reason, delay minutes and times. Price: $0.005 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | optional filter: ground_stop, ground_delay_program, departure_delay, arrival_delay, closure, airspace_flow_program |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing the output ordering ('sorted by severity'), the returned fields (reason, delay minutes, times), and the payment model ($0.005 USDC per call via x402 on Base) — that pricing/authorship disclosure is exactly what an agent needs. However, it says nothing about freshness/caching of the delay data, behavior when no delays exist, or pagination/volume limits.
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: the content/scope statement first, with the enumerated program types and sort order, then the pricing note. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.
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?
It covers what is returned, how it's ordered, and the cost, which is most of what a caller needs for a simple single-param read tool with no output schema. Gaps remain: no mention of the optional type filter, data freshness, or empty-result behavior, and no annotation covers those either.
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 includes the allowed filter values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description never mentions the optional 'type' filter, only reinforcing that the unfiltered call returns 'all' programs — baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific resource and scope: 'All current FAA delay programs nationwide' with enumerated categories (ground stops, GDPs, AFPs, arrival/departure delays, closures) and ordering by severity. The resource is clearly distinct from the sibling airports_status and airports_weather, though the description never names those siblings or explains the boundary explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for checking active delay programs, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over airports_status or airports_weather, and no note that the default call returns everything nationwide. Adequate but no explicit routing guidance.
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.