Skip to main content
Glama

NewKwLab Tools

search_airports

Search airports by name or city keyword in the OurAirports public-domain database and return matching airports with codes and coordinates.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "search_airports"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesSearch keyword, e.g. Kennedy, London, Tokyo
limitNoMax results, 1-25 (default 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the data source and license posture (public-domain OurAirports) and what comes back ('codes and coordinates'), which implies a read-only lookup. It does not state ranking/matching behavior, empty-result behavior, or that no side effects occur, so gaps remain for an unannotated tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the searchable fields and the returned data are both stated in one pass.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what is searched and roughly what is returned. Minor omissions are result ordering and behavior on zero matches, but nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by specifying that 'q' matches against airport name or city — a detail the schema only illustrates with examples. The 'limit' parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given its documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Search airports'), the matching fields ('name or city keyword'), and the backing dataset ('OurAirports public-domain database'). It is clear enough to distinguish from a code-based lookup like lookup_airport, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: keyword search when you have a name or city rather than an exact identifier. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or pointer to lookup_airport for exact-code resolution, so the agent must infer the boundary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources