transita_match_visasScore a user's profile against every visa pathway Transita supports. Returns the top matches ranked by eligibility, with timeline, cost, and links to official sources. EU citizens automatically surface freedom-of-movement options first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| age | No | ||
| goal | No | ||
| timeline | No | ||
| education | No | ||
| income_usd | No | ||
| work_field | No | ||
| work_years | No | ||
| citizenship | Yes | ||
| current_country | No | ||
| target_countries | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavior independently. It discloses that results are ranked by eligibility, includes timeline, cost, and official links, and applies a special rule for EU citizens. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent clear expectations of output and edge-case handling, though it omits details like required fields beyond citizenship (left to the 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place: the first defines the operation, the second details output and a notable behavioral nuance. No redundancy.
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?
The description covers the essential return contract (ranked matches with timeline, cost, links) and an EU-specific behavior. However, with 10 parameters and no output schema, it could clarify how optional parameters are used or whether target_countries narrows the search. The absence of any discussion of edge cases (e.g., no matches) leaves minor gaps.
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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining how profile parameters influence scoring. It only refers to 'user's profile' generically and does not describe any of the 10 parameters, nor how fields like age, income_usd, or target_countries affect matching. The schema itself provides enums but no narrative, leaving the agent undersupplied on parameter usage.
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's function: 'Score a user's profile against every visa pathway Transita supports.' This is a specific verb-resource pair with scope, and it distinguishes from siblings like compare_visas or search_by_nationality by emphasizing ranked top matches across all pathways.
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 usage when a user profile needs to be evaluated against all visa options, and notes EU citizens get free-movement options first. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as compare_visas or provide exclusions, so guidance is implied but not fully articulated.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct query type: comparison, country-level overview, profile matching, live status, nationality-based search, and detailed visa info. Even though visa_details and programme_status both concern a single pathway, their purposes are clearly separated as static details versus live intake status.
All tools share a consistent transita_ prefix and use snake_case, but the post-prefix patterns are mixed: compare_visas and match_visas are verb_noun, while country_overview, programme_status, and visa_details are noun-based. This is a minor inconsistency that does little to impede selection.
Six tools is an appropriate scope for a visa advisory server, covering search, comparison, detail, and status-checking without redundancy. Each tool has a clear role in the user journey from initial exploration to specific pathway evaluation.
The server covers the core advisory workflow: find destinations by nationality, get country overviews, match profiles, compare pathways, fetch details, and check current intake status. A notable minor gap is the absence of a direct 'list all visas for a country' tool, but search_by_nationality and country_overview mitigate this.