list_destinationsList every destination with a published price series, with how many days each rail was actually measured and the calendar span those measurements fall in. Historical observations only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "currency": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "destinations": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "generated": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "key": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "rails": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "measured": {
+ "properties": {
+ "days": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "from": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "to": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "days",
+ "from",
+ "to"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "party": {
+ "properties": {
+ "adults": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "children": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "adults",
+ "children"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "rail": {
+ "enum": [
+ "flight",
+ "package"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "resort": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "resort_key": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "rail",
+ "party",
+ "measured"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "properties": {
+ "cs": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "en": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "cs",
+ "en"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "key",
+ "slug",
+ "title",
+ "url",
+ "generated",
+ "rails"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "disclaimer": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "license": {
+ "properties": {
+ "attribution": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "url",
+ "attribution"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "schema": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "stale_rails": {
+ "description": "How many of the rails in scope are past their own freshness boundary on `as_of` (Europe/Prague).",
+ "properties": {
+ "as_of": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "keys": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "of": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "unknown": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "as_of",
+ "of",
+ "count",
+ "keys"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "schema",
+ "currency",
+ "count",
+ "stale_rails",
+ "destinations",
+ "disclaimer"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "description": "tool-level failure, returned with isError: true",
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "code",
+ "message"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "error"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what data is included (published price series, days measured, calendar span) and the historical-only constraint. It doesn't describe pagination or result limits, but with zero parameters and an output schema present, this is acceptable.
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 with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the historical-only constraint is stated clearly at the end. 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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could explicitly mention that no filters or arguments are accepted, but the empty schema already conveys that. The historical-only scope is clearly stated.
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 schema is trivially complete. The description adds meaning by explaining what the returned list contains, which is the only relevant semantic information. Baseline 4 for zero params 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 lists every destination with a published price series, and specifies the exact information returned (days measured and calendar span). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on historical observations only.
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 this is for getting an overview of all destinations with historical data, and the 'Historical observations only' phrase clarifies scope. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when to use them, but the sibling context and clear scope provide adequate 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.