Get flight departures from an airport. Returns flight number, airline, destination, scheduled time, status, gate, and terminal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No | Look-ahead window in hours (1-12, default: 6) | |
| airport | No | IATA airport code (default: JFK) | JFK |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists return fields but does not mention potential delays, real-time vs scheduled, error handling, or any restrictions.
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 two sentences: one stating the action and one listing return fields. No unnecessary words, well-structured.
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?
Given low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema) the description covers purpose and return data. Missing details like default behavior when no results or ordering, but sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.
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 descriptions for both parameters (hours and airport). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 retrieves flight departures for an airport and lists specific return fields like flight number, airline, status. It distinguishes from sibling get_airport_info, which likely provides airport details rather than flight schedules.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_airport_info. The purpose is clear but lacks when-not-to-use or contextual alternatives.
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.
Both tools have clearly distinct purposes: one provides static airport details, the other lists flight departures. There is no ambiguity or overlap.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, making it easy to infer their function.
With only 2 tools, the server feels underdeveloped for its domain. A typical flight data service would benefit from at least 3-5 tools to cover common queries.
The server claims to provide real-time flight data but lacks essential operations such as arrivals, flight status by number, or delay information, leaving significant gaps.