Reisepläne, Last-Minute-Checks und Vergleich eigener Angebote. Keine Livepreise oder Buchungen.
Scored across 3 tools
The three tools have largely distinct purposes: comparing user-entered offers, generating a trip plan, and building a last-minute checklist. However, create_trip_plan mentions 'Last-Minute-Prüfpunkte' and last_minute_checklist also covers last-minute items, creating minor overlap that could confuse selection.
All names use snake_case and are readable. Two follow a clear verb_noun pattern (compare_travel_offers, create_trip_plan), while last_minute_checklist is an adjective_noun phrase, a minor deviation from the dominant convention.
Three tools is a small but reasonable set for a focused planning assistant, and each tool has a clear role. It is slightly thin for a server named 'Reiseplaner', but not extreme or mismatched.
The surface lacks core travel-planning operations such as searching offers, saving or listing trips, updating/deleting plans, and actual booking. Since the tools explicitly avoid live prices and external data, the server is limited to user-input-based planning and comparison, leaving significant gaps for real trip workflows.
Vergleicht zwei bis fünf vollständig nutzerseitig eingegebene Reiseangebote einschließlich Gebühren und Tageskosten. Gibt einen optionalen Link zurück, um diese Angebote auf Blitzbuchen weiterzubearbeiten. Es werden keine externen Preise abgerufen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offers | Yes | ||
| travelers | Yes | Personenzahl für alle eingegebenen Angebote. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds value on top: it discloses what is computed (fees and daily costs included), that it returns an optional deep link for further editing, and that no external prices are fetched. Missing only pagination/return-shape detail, which is minor here.
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?
Three dense sentences with zero filler: purpose/scope first, then the return value, then the negative boundary. Everything is front-loaded and each sentence 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 two-parameter comparison tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, what is computed, the optional return link, and the no-external-data constraint. It is nearly complete; only the travelers parameter's role is left entirely to the schema.
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 50%, so the schema carries part of the load. The description conveys that offers include fees and per-person daily costs, aligning with bookingCost/dailyCost fields, but says nothing about the travelers parameter or the defaults documented in the schema (nights, baggageCosts, transferCosts). Adequate but does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 and resource (compares travel offers) with an explicit scope (two to five fully user-entered offers) and enumerates what is included (fees, daily costs). It also carves out what it is not (no external prices fetched), which separates it from siblings like create_trip_plan and last_minute_checklist.
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?
Implies the usage context well: it operates on 2-5 user-entered offers and explicitly does not retrieve external prices, which is a useful boundary condition. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer it over create_trip_plan or last_minute_checklist, so routing guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Erstellt einen generischen Tagesplan, Budgetrahmen, Last-Minute-Prüfpunkte und eine direkt zu öffnende Blitzbuchen-Planungs-URL. Nutzt nur deine Eingaben, keine Livepreise oder Ortsdaten.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | Yes | Kalendertage einschließlich An- und Abreisetag. | |
| pace | No | Gewünschtes Tempo; Standard balanced. | |
| budget | Yes | Gesamtbudget aller Reisenden in EUR. | |
| dailyCost | Yes | Ausgaben vor Ort je Person und Kalendertag in EUR. | |
| interests | No | ||
| travelers | Yes | ||
| bookingCost | No | Bekannte Buchungskosten für die ganze Gruppe; Standard 0 EUR. | |
| destination | No | Freitext bis 100 Zeichen; leer, null oder weggelassen bedeutet, dass das Ziel noch offen ist. | |
| departureDate | Yes | Reisedatum als YYYY-MM-DD; heute bezieht sich auf Europe/Berlin, danach UTC-Kalendertagarithmetik bis höchstens 730 Tage voraus. | |
| transportCost | No | Bekannte zusätzliche Transportkosten für die ganze Gruppe; Standard 0 EUR. | |
| reservePercent | No | Reserve als Anteil des Gesamtbudgets; Standard 10 Prozent. | |
| departureAirport | No | Optionaler Abflughafen als Freitext. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/no-open-world, and the description reinforces this by stating the result is derived solely from user input with no live price or geodata lookups. It also discloses that a ready-to-open planning URL is returned. It does not explain the output shape beyond listing artifacts.
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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the deliverables and followed by the key behavioral constraint. Every clause carries information.
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 12-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description usefully enumerates the returned artifacts in place of an output schema and bounds behavior to local computation. It leaves the interaction between reservePercent, budget and dailyCost unexplained, but the schema covers those fields.
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 83%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter (days, budget, dailyCost, reservePercent, departureDate semantics). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond confirming that only supplied inputs are used, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ("Erstellt") plus the concrete artifacts produced: Tagesplan, Budgetrahmen, Last-Minute-Prüfpunkte und eine Planungs-URL. It implicitly separates itself from compare_travel_offers by declaring it uses no live prices, but it never names a sibling tool outright.
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?
Usage is only implied: "Nutzt nur deine Eingaben, keine Livepreise oder Ortsdaten" tells the agent this is a pure offline planning computation, which effectively excludes it from offer-comparison tasks. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Erstellt eine Checkliste mit künftigen T-72-/T-24-Terminen sowie priorisierten fälligen oder verpassten Schritten, die jetzt erledigt werden sollten.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | Yes | Kalendertage einschließlich An- und Abreisetag. | |
| pace | No | Gewünschtes Tempo; Standard balanced. | |
| budget | Yes | Gesamtbudget aller Reisenden in EUR. | |
| dailyCost | Yes | Ausgaben vor Ort je Person und Kalendertag in EUR. | |
| interests | No | ||
| travelers | Yes | ||
| bookingCost | No | Bekannte Buchungskosten für die ganze Gruppe; Standard 0 EUR. | |
| destination | No | Freitext bis 100 Zeichen; leer, null oder weggelassen bedeutet, dass das Ziel noch offen ist. | |
| departureDate | Yes | Reisedatum als YYYY-MM-DD; heute bezieht sich auf Europe/Berlin, danach UTC-Kalendertagarithmetik bis höchstens 730 Tage voraus. | |
| transportCost | No | Bekannte zusätzliche Transportkosten für die ganze Gruppe; Standard 0 EUR. | |
| reservePercent | No | Reserve als Anteil des Gesamtbudgets; Standard 10 Prozent. | |
| departureAirport | No | Optionaler Abflughafen als Freitext. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the computed output: time-relative T-72/T-24 deadlines plus prioritized overdue/missed steps, which effectively substitutes for the absent output schema.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the action first and then the produced content. No filler, no repetition of the title, nothing that fails to earn 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 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and roughly what is returned, and the schema covers the inputs. However, it gives no guidance on tool selection among siblings and no note on how the many optional budget/pace parameters influence the checklist, leaving a gap.
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 83%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including departureDate's Berlin/UTC day arithmetic and enum/range constraints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Erstellt eine Checkliste') plus the exact content it produces (T-72/T-24 deadlines, prioritized due/missed steps). It is clear and concrete, though it never names or distinguishes itself from the sibling 'create_trip_plan', leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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 'Last-Minute' framing implies a pre-departure context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing advice toward compare_travel_offers or create_trip_plan. An agent cannot tell from the text which of the three planning tools is appropriate here.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
compare_travel_offerscreate_trip_planlast_minute_checklistPlans a whole trip from a total budget, every price labelled live, estimate or official.
Plan trips and find hotels, tours and flights; build day-by-day itineraries. Account required.
Create trips, compare variants side by side, and add accommodation, transport and event options.
Live flight, hotel and seat prices, cheapest-day calendars, and price-drop alerts.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
