Find available flights by specifying origin, destination, and departure date to compare options and plan travel.
搜索航班
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | 出发日期 YYYY-MM-DD | |
| origin | Yes | 出发地三字码,如 PEK | |
| destination | Yes | 目的地三字码,如 SFO |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about the data source, whether results include live pricing/availability, rate limits, or how results are ordered or paged.
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?
Extremely short and front-loaded with no wasted words, but this tips into under-specification. The single phrase does not carry enough information for a 3-required-parameter search tool.
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?
All three required parameters are documented in the schema, but there is no output schema and the description says nothing about what a search returns (flight list, prices, availability) or the one-way-only semantics implied by a single date field. For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves meaningful gaps.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a clear description (date format YYYY-MM-DD, three-letter airport codes with examples), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('搜索航班' / search flights), which is unambiguous. Sibling tools are unrelated domains (invoice, calendar, weather, email), so no differentiation is required, but the description adds no scope detail such as one-way vs. round-trip or what is returned.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool or when not to. There is no mention of prerequisites, whether dates must be in the future, or whether it handles multi-city/round-trip searches via the single 'date' parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.