Lounge Frog

Best-rated airlines

top_airlines

Read-onlyIdempotent

The airline leaderboard, ranked by overall score or by one metric (get_airline_metrics lists the metric slugs).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "top_airlines"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`by`	No	"overall" (default) or a metric slug, e.g. "on-time", "food"
`limit`	No	How many to return (default 20)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful constraint that ranking is either aggregate or single-metric (never multi-metric), but says nothing about ordering direction, ties, or what a returned entry contains.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its ranking rule, with the cross-reference tucked in as a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and nothing important trails.

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-optional-parameter, read-only ranking tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is nearly complete. The only gap an agent might want is a hint about the shape of a ranked entry (name plus score), which is minor here.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3: the schema already documents 'by' with examples and 'limit' with a default and range. The description's only addition beyond the schema is the pointer to get_airline_metrics as the source of valid slugs.

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?

States a specific resource and operation: an airline leaderboard ranked by overall score or a single metric. The ranking scope distinguishes it from the plain list_airlines sibling, though that sibling is never named 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?

Implied guidance comes from the parenthetical pointing to get_airline_metrics for valid metric slugs, which is a real routing hint. However, it never says when to pick this over list_airlines or get_airline, so an agent must infer the leaderboard-vs-catalog distinction.

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

All Lounge Frog tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?