getFlightInfoRetrieves detailed flight information using a flight number, including status, seat configuration, pricing, and weather. Use it to check real-time flight conditions before booking or traveling.
航班信息查询 - 根据航班号查询详细的航班信息，包括航班状态、座位配置、价格、天气等
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flight_number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the scope of returned data (status, seat configuration, price, weather), which is real behavioral value, but omits any statement about read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, or error conditions for an unknown flight number.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and then the payload; no waste. Only minor redundancy between the 'flight information query' preamble and the explicit verb that follows.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the input and sketches the return contents. It falls short on input format and on distinguishing this tool from getFlightStatus, both of which an agent needs to select and call it correctly.
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 0% and the single parameter has no type/format documentation in the schema. The description only restates the input as 'flight number' without specifying expected format (e.g., IATA carrier+number like 'CA1234'), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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+resource (query flight info by flight number) and enumerates the returned content (status, seating, pricing, weather). However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely-named sibling getFlightStatus, which also returns flight status, so an agent cannot easily tell which to pick from the description alone.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite siblings like getFlightStatus and searchFlightRoutes covering overlapping ground. The agent is left to infer routing from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.