Resolve um nome de lugar (em português ou qualquer idioma) para códigos IATA de cidade/aeroporto — ex.: 'São Paulo' → SAO (cidade), GRU, CGH. Use quando precisar desambiguar a origem/destino antes de buscar. Resolves place names to IATA codes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Nome do lugar, ex.: 'Florianópolis', 'Porto', 'Nova York' | |
| limit | No | Máximo de resultados, padrão 5 | |
| locale | No | Idioma dos nomes retornados, padrão pt |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the core behavior (place name → IATA codes) and mentions language flexibility, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated), how errors or ambiguous inputs are handled, or any rate limits. For a lookup tool this is serviceable but not exhaustive.
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?
The description is efficient, with the core purpose front-loaded and a practical example embedded. The Portuguese/English duplication adds length but both versions carry parallel content, so it's not wasteful. Every sentence serves a purpose; no fluff.
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 3-parameter tool without an output schema, the description provides enough context: purpose, input format, example, and usage timing. It does not explicitly detail response structure (e.g., list of IATA codes with city vs airport labels), but the example implies this. Given the simplicity, it's adequately complete.
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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds critical value by giving a concrete example of the q parameter mapping to multiple IATA codes (city and airports), and clarifies that q accepts names in any language. This goes beyond the schema's basic description and helps the agent understand expected output.
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?
Description states a clear verb-resource mapping: resolves place names to IATA codes, with concrete examples ('São Paulo' → SAO, GRU, CGH). It clearly distinguishes from sibling flight/search tools by focusing on location disambiguation, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.
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?
Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use quando precisar desambiguar a origem/destino antes de buscar' (use when needing to disambiguate origin/destination before searching). It implies it's a preparatory step, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. That's sufficient given the clear sibling separation.
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.