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 data is returned (fuel breakdown components) and hints at behavior with the 'latest dispatch' note, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap 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 highly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence lists the fuel components, and the second provides critical parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 has an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values, but could benefit from more behavioral context to address 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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it explains that leaving 'plan_id' empty retrieves the latest dispatch, which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's minimal title ('Plan Id'). With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by providing practical usage semantics.

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: to retrieve a detailed fuel breakdown including specific components like taxi, trip burn, contingency, etc. It specifies the verb ('get') and resource ('fuel plan'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_full_flight_plan' or 'get_flight_summary' which might also contain fuel information.

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 omit the parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_full_flight_plan' or 'get_flight_summary,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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