Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• mcp_search_flightsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds output details (best_flights, other_flights, Google Flights URL), but an output schema exists, reducing the need for that. It discloses no additional behavioral caveats such as rate limits, failure modes, or result-size limits.

  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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact Args list and a brief Returns note. Every line contributes useful information, and the length is justified by the 10-parameter surface area.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the high parameter count and complete lack of schema descriptions, this tool description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. It covers all parameters, defaults, filters, and return shape, leaving no critical ambiguity.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter with examples (IATA codes), format (YYYY-MM-DD), defaults, and enumerated meanings (stops, travel_class, sort_by, currency). This adds significant value beyond the bare input schema.

  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 opens with 'Search for flights on a specific route and date,' which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and core scoping criteria. This distinguishes it from the sibling mcp_get_booking_options by focusing on the flight search itself rather than booking options.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: searching flights on a route and date. It does not explicitly mention the sibling alternative or provide exclusions, but the use case is unambiguous and easy for an agent to apply.

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

• mcp_get_booking_optionsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it calls external providers for booking URLs and returns a structured JSON array. No contradictions, and it supplements the annotation with dependency and output details.

  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?

  Compact and well-structured with a summary, usage note, args, and returns. Each line adds value; no fluff.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a 2-param read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, input dependency, and return shape. Adequate without needing error handling details.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but description explains booking_token as from flight search results and currency as ISO code with default EUR. Fully compensates for schema gaps.

  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?

  States it retrieves booking links and prices for a specific flight, using a booking_token from search. This clearly differentiates from the sibling search_flights tool.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  Explains the dependency on a booking_token from a search result, implying it should be used after mcp_search_flights. Does not explicitly name the sibling or state when not to use, but context is clear.

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