Find Agoda flight destinations by resolving a free-text city or airport name into IATA airport codes, including direct and nearby airports.
Search Agoda flight destinations/airports. Resolves a free-text city or airport name into IATA airport codes for flight search, with each city's direct and nearby airports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | Yes | Free-text city or airport name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape usefully — IATA codes plus each city's direct and nearby airports — which is valuable since there is no output schema. But it omits any note on auth, rate limits, or how many matches are returned.
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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the return-value detail following. Every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece — what the keyword resolves to and that nearby airports are included. It is complete enough to call correctly, though a note on match limits or ambiguity handling would round it out.
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?
With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'keyword' as a free-text city or airport name. The description's restatement adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail 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?
States a specific verb (resolves/search) and resource (Agoda flight destinations/airports into IATA airport codes), making the lookup function unambiguous. It does not name the sibling it complements (agoda_flights_search), so differentiation relies on the agent inferring this is the pre-search resolver step.
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 'for flight search' implies this is a prerequisite lookup before calling a flight search, which is useful context. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus agoda_flights_search or the other autocomplete-style siblings, and offers no exclusions or preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.