Agoda flight segment amenities: aircraft type, seat layout, meals, entertainment, and wifi for one or more flight segments from a prior flight search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| segments | No | One or more flight segments to fetch amenities for. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-dependency profile is covered. The description adds that inputs come from a prior search, but says nothing about rate limits, partial results, or per-segment failure behavior — a modest addition over the annotations.
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 lists the resource and its fields with no filler or redundancy. 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the fully documented schema covers the single parameter. The remaining gap is that the description does not name agoda_flights_search as the source of segments, leaving the agent to infer the upstream call.
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 100% and the nested segment object documents each field (cabin_class vs cabin_code, carrier_code, fare_basis_code, etc.) in detail. The description only restates 'one or more flight segments' and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, 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?
Names a specific resource (Agoda flight segment amenities) and enumerates exactly what is returned: aircraft type, seat layout, meals, entertainment, wifi. It implicitly differentiates from agoda_flights_search by noting it operates on segments from a prior search, though it never names that sibling explicitly and uses no explicit verb.
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 phrase 'from a prior flight search' implies this is a follow-up lookup whose input comes from agoda_flights_search, which is useful sequencing context. However, no alternative tool is named, no when-not-to-use guidance is given, and the prerequisite is left for the agent to infer.
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.
