flight_statusLlegadas y salidas del aeropuerto Alicante-Elche (ALC) para una ciudad o fecha concreta, con estado y hora publicada. Acota por ciudad o fecha en lugar de pedir el listado completo del día.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Ciudad de origen o destino. | |
| date | No | Fecha YYYY-MM-DD en Europe/Madrid. | |
| type | Yes | Llegadas, salidas o todos los vuelos del día. | |
| limit | No | Resultados (máx. 10). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds some behavioral context by mentioning status and published time and the scoping behavior, but it does not disclose things like data freshness, response size, or timezone behavior beyond what the schema notes.
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 compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the resource and output, and the second clarifies the intended scoping behavior. 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?
For a read-only query tool with a fully documented schema, the description provides the essential user-facing semantics: scope by city/date and include status and published time. It does not describe the exact response structure, but no output schema is present and the description covers the core invocation context sufficiently.
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 schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description mentions 'city or date' but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly identifies the resource (Alicante-Elche airport arrivals/departures) and the key output (status and published time), and it states the scoping behavior by city or date. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like next_departures or search_alicante, so it stops short of a 5.
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 useful context on when to use the tool: narrow by city or date instead of requesting the full daily list. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for flight-specific queries.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose: find_transit_stop and resolve_entity both resolve stops, while get_current_state, next_departures, favorite_stop, parking_availability, and beach_conditions all provide state/arrival information in different forms. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool when asked for simple arrival or status information.
All names use snake_case and are readable, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb-led (find_place, get_current_state, resolve_entity), some are noun phrases (beach_conditions, fuel_prices, flight_status), and others are quirky (whats_on, catch_vehicle_decision). This is not chaotic, but it lacks a strong consistent convention.
With 16 tools, the server is just above the ideal 3-15 range, but the broad Alicante information domain justifies the count. Each tool covers a distinct vertical or query path, and the set feels reasonably scoped rather than bloated.
The tool surface covers the main Alicante information domains well: transit, beaches, parking, food, places, flights, fuel, weather, and events, plus discovery/resolution helpers. There are minor gaps such as no direct traffic or bike-sharing tool, but agents can work around them via find_place or search_alicante.