All tracked airlines
list_airlinesEvery airline SeatWiFi tracks, with its WiFi providers. Large response — use search_wifi or get_airline_wifi when you know which airline you want.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
list_airlinesEvery airline SeatWiFi tracks, with its WiFi providers. Large response — use search_wifi or get_airline_wifi when you know which airline you want.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld hints. The description adds 'Large response' as a behavioral caveat and clarifies the return includes WiFi providers. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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 sentences: the first states purpose, the second gives a warning and directs to alternatives. No filler, concise and structured.
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 simple, parameterless listing tool, the description covers the purpose, content, and usage caveats. The absent output schema is compensated by the description's mention of airline and provider information.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description's job is minimal. It doesn't need to explain parameters; the schema already covers everything. Baseline of 4 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 clearly states the tool's function: list every tracked airline along with its WiFi providers. It explicitly differentiates itself from search_wifi and get_airline_wifi, which are for targeted lookups.
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 explicit guidance: use this tool when you want the full list, but for a known airline, use search_wifi or get_airline_wifi. This gives clear when-to-use and alternatives.
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 have distinct purposes, but get_flight_wifi and get_wifi_facts both answer flight-level WiFi questions, creating overlap. The descriptions help by directing users to get_wifi_facts as the preferred choice, yet the redundancy remains. Other tools like get_airline_wifi vs list_airlines are differentiated by scope, but the core flight lookup is duplicated.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: get_airline_wifi, get_flight_wifi, get_rollouts, get_speed_stats, get_tail_info, get_wifi_facts, list_airlines, search_wifi. The verbs (get, list, search) are appropriate and uniform. No mixed naming conventions or camelCase deviations are present.
The 8 tools are well-scoped for a WiFi information server, covering airline, flight, aircraft, speed, rollout, and search capabilities without overwhelming redundancy. Each tool serves a distinct need (except the noted overlap), and the count sits comfortably in the ideal range.
The tool set comprehensively covers the in-flight WiFi domain: airline-wide info, flight-specific predictions, tail history, speed statistics, rollout progress, and free-text search. No critical operations are missing, and the inclusion of both airline and flight level lookups with fallback logic makes the surface complete for read-only information retrieval.