open-transfer-times

Check a flight connection

check_connection

Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate whether a flight connection leaves enough time by deducting transfer steps from the layover and returning comfort rating, reasons, and ticket-protection risk.

Instructions

Assess whether a one-stop flight connection leaves enough time to transfer. Deducts the transfer steps that apply at the connection airport (walking, Schengen passport control, terminal change, security re-screening, baggage re-check) from the scheduled layover and returns comfortable / reasonable / tight / risky, the reasons, ticket-protection exposure, and the cited airport facts behind the estimate. Give the scheduled arrival and departure as local wall-clock times at the connection airport, or only layover_minutes when that is all the user said. Explain the result using the returned steps; airport facts are context and only apply where their scope matches the trip.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes	Destination airport of the second flight (IATA), e.g. PVG
`via`	Yes	Connection airport (IATA), e.g. IST
`from`	Yes	Origin airport of the first flight (IATA), e.g. BER
`ticket`	No	protected = both flights on one ticket/booking; separate = self-transfer on separate tickets; unknown if not stated	unknown
`arrival_time`	No	Scheduled arrival of the first flight at the connection airport, local time, YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm. Give both times, or layover_minutes instead.
`departure_time`	No	Scheduled departure of the second flight from the connection airport, local time, YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm. Give both times, or layover_minutes instead.
`baggage_recheck`	No	Set true if checked bags must be collected and checked in again
`layover_minutes`	No	Scheduled time between arrival and departure, in minutes. Use this when the user gives only a layover duration; do not invent dates or clock times.
`terminal_change`	No	Set true if a terminal change is known but terminals are not given
`arrival_terminal`	No	Arrival terminal at the connection airport, if known
`departure_terminal`	No	Departure terminal at the connection airport, if known

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`route`	Yes
`steps`	Yes
`ticket`	Yes
`factors`	Yes
`quality`	Yes
`verdict`	Yes
`confidence`	Yes	How far the estimate can be trusted, independent of the quality rating. Low means key information is missing.
`disclaimer`	Yes
`buffer_minutes`	Yes
`layover_source`	Yes
`layover_minutes`	Yes
`connection_airport`	Yes
`transfer_process_minutes`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral content beyond that: it explains the deduction logic (walking, Schengen passport control, terminal change, security re-screening, baggage re-check), the output verdict categories, ticket-protection exposure, and the cited airport facts. It stops short of noting data freshness or how missing airport data is handled.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and each subsequent sentence carries a distinct instruction (input modes, output contents, interpretation caveat). It is dense but a single unbroken paragraph, and the final sentence about airport-fact scope is a touch abstract.

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?

With 11 parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations all present, the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: how to choose between time-based and duration-based input, what the verdicts mean, and how to explain the result. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value by explaining the two mutually exclusive input modes (paired local times vs. layover_minutes) and by stressing local-time semantics at the connection airport. That meaning is not fully conveyed by the per-field schema descriptions alone.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: assess whether a one-stop connection leaves enough transfer time. The 'one-stop' scoping implicitly separates it from compare_connections, but no sibling is named, so an agent must infer the boundary between checking one connection and comparing several.

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?

It gives clear input-selection guidance: supply local wall-clock arrival and departure times, or layover_minutes when that is all the user said, and it warns not to invent dates or clock times. It also constrains interpretation ('airport facts are context and only apply where their scope matches the trip'). What it does not do is state when to prefer this over compare_connections or get_airport_profile.

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

Deploy Server