x402engine-mcp

search_locations

Search airports and cities by keyword, returning IATA codes, names, and coordinates.

Instructions

Search for airports and cities by keyword. Returns IATA codes, names, and coordinates. $0.005 per request.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "keyword": "<keyword>"
    },
    "name": "search_locations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keyword`	Yes	Search keyword (e.g., 'London', 'JFK', 'Paris')
`subType`	No	Location type filter: AIRPORT, CITY, or both	AIRPORT,CITY

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the cost ($0.005 per request) and return fields (IATA codes, names, coordinates), adding useful context. However, it omits other behavioral details like pagination, error handling, or read-only safety, leaving some gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes cost and return info without redundancy. Every part earns its place with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose, output fields, and cost. It doesn't explain potential limits or pagination, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity. It is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both keyword and subType having descriptive text. The description adds no additional meaning beyond mentioning airports and cities, which aligns with subType's default. It does not enrich actual parameter usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool does a keyword search for airports and cities, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_flights and search_hotels by explicitly focusing on locations and returning IATA codes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use for location lookup but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, only an implied context.

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