flight_cancellation_riskReturn historical cancellation-risk signals for a route. This is not live tracking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dest | Yes | Destination airport code, for example LGA. | |
| month | No | Optional numeric month. | |
| origin | Yes | Origin airport code, for example ATL. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful temporal context with 'historical' and 'not live tracking,' but it does not disclose the signal format, lookback period, or granularity, so some behavioral detail remains implicit.
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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core capability, and the second sentence prevents misuse by clarifying this is not live tracking. Every word 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?
The tool is simple with only two required parameters, and annotations cover safety semantics. However, because there is no output schema, the description should clarify what 'signals' actually look like, such as fields, units, or possible values, which is currently left to inference.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented fully in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond routing, which is acceptable under the baseline for fully covered schemas.
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 verb ('Return'), resource ('historical cancellation-risk signals'), and scope ('for a route'). The phrase 'not live tracking' distinguishes it from live flight-status tools and implies it is not a real-time tracker, separating it clearly from sibling flight tools.
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?
Provides a clear use case: obtaining historical route cancellation-risk signals. It also gives an explicit when-not boundary with 'This is not live tracking.' It does not name alternatives like flight_reliability or flight_route_summary, so it stops short of full 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.
Multiple tools have genuinely blurry boundaries: company_change vs company_changes differ only by singular/plural yet serve different purposes, company_domain vs company_classify vs company_lookup_auto all accept a domain, geo_zip_lookup vs geo_enrich vs geo_zip_batch all return ZIP profiles, and email_validate subsumes much of email_disposable and email_free_provider. The domain prefixes help narrow search space, but within many domains an agent cannot reliably predict which tool is the right one.
All 129 tools uniformly follow a snake_case [domain]_[topic] convention (company_, fx_, geo_, dns_, weather_, tax_), which is highly predictable and consistent. Minor deviations include the confusing company_change/company_changes pair, and inconsistent suffix usage (_batch appears on address_validate_batch, company_domains_batch, geo_zip_batch but not on equivalent lookup tools elsewhere).
129 tools far exceeds the 50+ extreem-mismatch threshold, bundling roughly 28 unrelated data domains (weather, fx, tax, ccompany, dns, jobs, flight, email, phone, tax...) into a single MCP surface. Even focusing on one domain forces the agent to load an enormous unrelated tool list; this should be split into many smaller domain-specific servers.
Per-domain coverage is impressively thorough: weather spans current/forecast/hourly/historical/normals/marine/route/air-quality, fx covers rates/convert/historical/volatility/correlation/strenth, and company includes lookup/enrichment/networks/timeline/peer-comparison plus six buyer-tuned signals with profile-introspection tools. Minor gaps like flight being historical-only and smtp probes skipping major email providers are documented scope decisions rather than dead ends.