list_aip_aerodromosList ICAO codes and names of Ecuadorian aerodromes and helipads that have a published AIP AD 2 page, so you can identify one before retrieving its AIP details.
ICAO codes and names of aerodromes/helipads with a published AIP AD 2 page (DGAC eAIP). Next: get_aip_aerodromo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | text summary (default) or json structured result. | text |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.10.0Input schema / properties / format / descriptionAdded value: +"text summary (default) or json structured result."v0.8.14Input schema / properties / format / titleRemoved value: -"Format"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"list_aip_aerodromosArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"list_aip_aerodromosDictOutput"v0.8.12Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint — results are limited to aerodromes with a published AIP AD 2 page — but says nothing about result size, pagination, or completeness of the listing.
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 short sentences with zero filler: the scope/filter constraint is front-loaded and the follow-up tool is appended as a route hint. 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, no-output-schema list tool, the description names the returned fields and the inclusion filter, which is most of what an agent needs. A brief note on volume/ordering would close the remaining gap.
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?
Only one optional parameter (format, text/json) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format or output-shape detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for a single well-described param.
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 the specific resource (aerodromes/helipads with a published AIP AD 2 page in the DGAC eAIP) and the exact payload returned (ICAO codes and names). It also names the sibling whose scope it differs from, so an agent can separate it from get_aip_aerodromo 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?
The trailing 'Next: get_aip_aerodromo' establishes the intended two-step flow (list here, then fetch details), which is clear context for when to use it. It stops short of explicit exclusions or stating when NOT to call it, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.