[ferryhopper] Find all direct ferry routes and reachable destination ports from a given origin port without layovers or transfers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| portLocation | Yes | Location name or search term used to find matching ports (not limited to exact port codes). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations were provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the key behavior (direct routes, no transfers, destination ports), but it does not state whether the op is read-only, what happens for no-match inputs, rate limits, or any errors. The 'get' name implies read behavior, but the description does not confirm it.
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?
One sentence front-loaded with the main purpose and zero filler. The key qualifier 'without transfers' appears at the end and adds precision without bloat.
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 single-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is mostly complete: it tells the agent what to provide (origin) and what to expect (routes and destination ports). Missing explicit detail about response format or whether schedule/price information is included, but for a simple 'find direct connection' tool that gap is minor.
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 schema already fully describes portLocation as a location name/search term not limited to exact port codes. The description adds a useful semantic detail: this parameter is the origin port. That connection between the description and the param is valuable enough to exceed the baseline.
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 uses a clear, specific verb ('Find') and names the exact resource: all direct ferry routes and reachable destination ports from an origin port. It also distinguishes itself from trip-search and port-lookup siblings by explicitly stating 'without layovers or transfers'.
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 intended use case is implied: use this when you need direct ferry connections or reachable ports from an origin port. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer alternatives like ferryhopper_search_trips, ferryhopper_get_ports, or ferryhopper_get_disruptions.
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.
Most tools are namespaced by vendor and resource, so ferry, tour, flight, hotel, and experience searches are broadly distinguishable. However, hotel search exists in both skiplagged and trivago, ferryhopper_search_trips is a deprecated duplicate of search_trips_v2, and several skiplagged calendar/anywhere tools overlap in flight-price discovery, which can cause misselection.
Naming conventions are mixed across the set: plain underscores (airports_search), vendor-prefixed underscores (ferryhopper_get_ports), redundant prefixes (skiplagged_sk_hotels_search, trivago_trivago-accommodation-search), and hyphenated sub-APIs (tourradar_b2b-tour-details, tourradar_vertex-tour-search). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern and at least one version-suffixed deprecated name.
With 56 tools, the server falls into the extreme-mismatch count band. The breadth is partly explained by eight vendor integrations, but many lookups, near-duplicate searches, and deprecated tools could be consolidated or split into focused MCP servers.
The tool surface covers most of the travel-planning lifecycle: airports, airlines, visa rules, FCDO advice, flights, hotels, cars, ferries, experiences, and tours including search, details, and tour booking. The main gaps are that only tours have an actual booking flow and there is no update/cancel or post-booking management.