Reserve a flight for a passenger using a flight ID, full name, and email; returns a booking confirmation with a booking ID.
Book a flight for a passenger. Returns booking confirmation with booking ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Email address for confirmation | ||
| flightId | Yes | Flight ID to book | |
| passengerName | Yes | Full name of the passenger |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return value ('booking confirmation with booking ID'), but for a mutation tool it omits critical context such as payment requirements, authentication needs, idempotency, or whether booking is reversible.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return value. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple three-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the core action and return value. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should mention at least basic prerequisites or side-effect expectations to be fully complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters fully. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, syntax, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.
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 ('Book a flight') and mentions the passenger target, which distinguishes it from search_flights, get_flight_details, and cancel_booking. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify how it relates to adjacent booking tools like get_booking_details.
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?
The description provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not state that a flight must be found first (e.g., via search_flights) or that a booking ID is required for follow-up operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.