SimBrief MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (retrieves crew assignments) and a behavioral note about the plan_id parameter, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains beyond crew roles. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and key usage note. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool has an output schema (which should cover return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it provides basic purpose and parameter guidance but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions or data freshness. For a simple read tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in completeness.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'plan_id' by explaining that leaving it empty retrieves the latest dispatch, which clarifies its optional nature and default behavior. Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides a title), the description compensates well by adding semantic value beyond the basic schema.

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 crew assignments for a flight, listing specific roles (captain, first officer, etc.), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_flight_summary' or 'get_full_flight_plan' that might also include crew information, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from alternatives.

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 provides implied usage guidance by stating 'Leave plan_id empty to get the latest dispatch,' which suggests when to use the default parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other 'get_' tools that might provide overlapping flight data) or any prerequisites, leaving the context somewhat vague.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.