list_airportsLists airports with dedicated transfer profiles and shows how well each profile is sourced, so you can identify which airports have reliable connection-time data.
List the airports that have their own transfer profile, with how well each is sourced.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| airports | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description still adds value by disclosing what the result set contains — only profiled airports, each annotated with how well it is sourced — which the annotations cannot convey. It says nothing about result size or ordering, which is a minor gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the filtering condition before the returned metadata. Every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant with the title.
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?
For a zero-param read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, this is nearly complete — the agent knows what it gets and why. Only the implicit relationship to get_airport_profile and any ordering/pagination behavior are unaddressed.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The schema is empty and 100% covered.
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?
Specific verb+resource ("List the airports") with a meaningful scope qualifier — only airports that have their own transfer profile — plus the nature of the returned metadata (sourcing quality). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_airport_profile, though the list-vs-single contrast is strongly implied by the verb.
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?
Usage is implied: call this to discover which airports have profiles before drilling into one with get_airport_profile. No explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no mention of the sibling tools by name, so the agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.