list_my_departuresHistory of PAST live tour runs grouped by run (how many sessions and participants each repeat run had). It does NOT list scheduled or upcoming trips; for upcoming departures, dates, capacity and spots left use list_my_trips.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / items / items / properties / sessionCount / typePrevious value: -[
- "number",
- "string"
-]New value: +[
+ "number",
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Output schema / properties / items / items / properties / totalParticipants / typePrevious value: -[
- "number",
- "string"
-]New value: +[
+ "number",
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the grouping semantics and what each group reports (session and participant counts), though it says nothing about pagination or result size.
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 with no waste. The core behavior is front-loaded and the exclusion plus alternative follow 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers scope, aggregation shape, and the boundary with the sibling tool, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and the description correctly adds no parameter details, since there are none to clarify.
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?
States a specific resource (past live tour runs) and a specific aggregation (grouped by run with session and participant counts). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_my_trips, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening either schema.
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?
Explicitly states the negative case ('does NOT list scheduled or upcoming trips') and names the alternative (list_my_trips) with the condition that selects it (upcoming departures, dates, capacity, spots left). Nothing is left to inference.
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.