SimBrief MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation (implied by 'get'), but doesn't mention behavioral traits like error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's idempotent. The description adds some context about the 'latest dispatch' behavior, but overall leaves gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence defines the purpose and lists key data fields, and the second sentence provides crucial parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent 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's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, key data returned, and parameter usage. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, it could better address behavioral aspects given the lack of annotations.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does this well by explaining the plan_id parameter's semantics: it can be left empty to get 'the latest dispatch,' which clarifies its optional nature and default behavior. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic type information.

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's purpose: retrieving a 'high-level summary of a flight plan' with specific data fields listed (flight number, aircraft, route, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like get_full_flight_plan (which likely provides more detail) and get_times/get_fuel_plan (which focus on specific aspects). However, it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 clear context on when to use it: for a 'high-level summary' rather than detailed components. It also gives explicit guidance on the plan_id parameter ('Leave plan_id empty to get the latest dispatch'), which helps with usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. get_full_flight_plan for complete details), so it's not a full 5.

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