[ferryhopper] Find all ferry travel disruptions, including delays, weather alerts, and strikes for a given date and country.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code to filter disruptions by country (e.g. "GR" for Greece). | |
| tripDate | Yes | Departure date in ISO format YYYY-MM-DD (e.g. 2026-03-15). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the tool's purpose and does not mention return format, pagination, staleness of data, scope limitations, or any unexpected behavior. As a result, the agent learns that the tool exists but not much more than the schema already implies.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that leadss with the action, then the subject of the tool, then the disruption types, then the filters. Vestigial prefixes like '[ferryhopper]' are minor and not harmful.
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?
The description and schema together provide enough information to invoke the tool: what it returns in general terms, the required parameters, and their formats. However, there is no guidance on usage conditions, return structure, or how to handle empty/unavailable disruption data, which leaves some gap for a no-annotation tool.
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 provides full descriptions for both parameters, including examples for country and tripDate. The description adds little beyond those schemas, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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?
The description states a clear verb ('Find') and resource ('all ferry travel disruptions'), and it enumerates the disruption types (delays, weather alerts, strikes) and filters (date and country). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling ferry tools like trip/search tools, but its meaning is unambiguous on its own.
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 when the tool should be used: when a user asks about ferry delays, weather alerts, or strikes for a specific date and country. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools such as search/trip/trip-details tools, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative conditions.
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.