MANDATORY START STEP: Get the system's recorded START values (Hobbs/Tacho) and available manual rates. INSTRUCTION: You MUST call this as soon as a flight to settle is identified. ACTION: Tell the pilot: "The recorded start readings are Hobbs [H] and Tacho [T]. Are these correct?". CRITICAL: DO NOT ask for end data in the same message. WAIT for confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bookingId | Yes | The UUID of the booking |
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 behavioral burden. It discloses that this is the start step, that the agent must present readings to the pilot, and that it must wait for confirmation before proceeding. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or describe response format, but the 'get' verb and workflow details provide reasonable transparency.
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 compact and well-structured with clear labeled sections (MANDATORY START STEP, INSTRUCTION, ACTION, CRITICAL). It front-loads the core purpose and uses imperative lines efficiently. The heavy use of capitalization is slightly noisy but not wasteful.
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?
Given a single well-documented parameter, no output schema, and low complexity, the description covers the essential workflow: what to retrieve, what to tell the pilot, and what to wait for. It does not explain what 'available manual rates' are or how to use them, but an agent has enough to invoke the tool 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 fully documents bookingId as 'The UUID of the booking' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the semantic weight.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves the system's recorded START values (Hobbs/Tacho) and available manual rates, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like preview_settlement or settle_booking, so it loses the top score for lacking direct sibling differentiation.
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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'MANDATORY START STEP' and 'You MUST call this as soon as a flight to settle is identified.' It also provides a critical sequencing rule ('DO NOT ask for end data in the same message. WAIT for confirmation'). It stops short of naming alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it is clear context without full when-not-to-use coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
