getFlightsInAreaQuery all flights within a specified geographic area using bounding box coordinates. Provide min/max latitude and longitude to retrieve flights in that region.
区域航班查询 - 查询指定地理区域内的所有航班。参数为边界框坐标(最小纬度,最大纬度,最小经度,最大经度)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_lat | Yes | ||
| max_lon | Yes | ||
| min_lat | Yes | ||
| min_lon | 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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only query but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, output format, pagination, or what happens with large result sets, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is a compact, front-loaded sentence followed by a short parameter note. It wastes little space, though the parameter note is essentially a comma-separated list without much added structure.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of truth. It covers the basic purpose and parameter grouping but omits return format, error behavior, and selection guidance against siblings, making it incomplete for an agent to call confidently.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It identifies all four parameters as a bounding box and gives their conceptual order (min lat, max lat, min lon, max lon), but it does not explain valid ranges, coordinate reference system, or inclusion semantics.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: query all flights within a geographic area defined by a bounding box. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like getAirportFlights or searchFlightRoutes, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.
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 only explains what the tool does and what parameters it takes. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over getAirportFlights, searchFlightRoutes, or other sibling tools, and no conditions or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.