Travel Product B — fetch one disruption event by event_id, with its frozen span-grounded source set (the evidence as it stood at emission; later evidence never mutates an emitted event).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, so safety is clear. The description adds meaningful context about the 'frozen span-grounded source set', explaining that the evidence is immutable after emission, which goes beyond schema. This provides valuable behavioral detail without contradicting 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?
The description is a single, focused sentence with a parenthetical explanation of the frozen source set. Every part adds value, and the structure makes the core purpose clear immediately.
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 single-event fetch with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives sufficient context about the return content (event plus its frozen source set). It lacks explicit alternative guidance but covers the essential behavior well.
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?
The schema has one parameter, event_id, with low description coverage. The description merely restates the parameter name ('by event_id') without adding format, semantics, or constraints beyond the schema's 'Event Id' title. Since coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but doesn't.
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 explicitly states 'fetch one disruption event by event_id', clearly identifying the action, resource, and key identifier. It also differentiates from sibling tools like 'get_disruptions' (plural) and 'list_disruption_events' by specifying a single event lookup.
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 the tool is for retrieving a single event by its ID, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to use this versus list_disruption_events. No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned.
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.
There is notable overlap among search, search_web, search_restaurants, and search_salons, as well as between filter_restaurants/filter_salons and search with constraints. However, descriptions clarify the intended vertical or corpus, and entity getters are distinct. The overlap is manageable but could cause misselection.
Names mostly follow a get_/list_/search_/register_/delete_/submit_/vote_ pattern in snake_case. Minor deviations like 'recall', 'remember', 'research', and 'travel_health' are less predictable but still readable. Overall consistent and clear.
38 tools is on the heavy side for a single MCP server, exceeding the typical well-scoped range. While the server covers multiple subdomains (search, travel disruptions, memory, feedback, research), the sheer number may overwhelm agents and suggests potential consolidation.
The tool surface covers core workflows: search and entity retrieval for restaurants/salons, disruption monitoring with standing queries and webhooks (register/list/delete), research submission/polling, and memory/feedback mechanisms. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancel for research jobs, no explicit entity list endpoint), but these are workable and do not break typical agent tasks.