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 mentions that leaving 'plan_id' empty retrieves 'the latest dispatch,' which adds some context about default behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists, so this is partially mitigated). For a tool with no annotations, 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: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides crucial parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly. The structure is efficient and directly supports tool selection and invocation.

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 somewhat complete. It covers the purpose and parameter usage adequately, and the existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, it lacks behavioral details like error conditions or operational constraints, which are important for a tool with no annotations. This leaves gaps in contextual understanding.

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 adds meaningful semantics: 'plan_id' is optional, and leaving it empty retrieves 'the latest dispatch.' This clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's basic type and title. Since there's only one parameter and the description provides useful context, it effectively compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 'All NOTAMs for the flight (departure, arrival and en-route).' It specifies the resource (NOTAMs) and scope (flight-related), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_weather' or 'get_navlog' beyond the resource type. The purpose is not tautological with the name, as 'get_notams' alone could imply generic NOTAM retrieval, while the description adds flight context.

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 for when to use the tool: it retrieves NOTAMs for a flight, covering departure, arrival, and en-route. It also includes guidance on the 'plan_id' parameter ('Leave plan_id empty to get the latest dispatch'), which helps inform usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'get_weather' for weather-related information instead of NOTAMs.

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