searchFlightRoutesQuery round-trip flight routes by providing departure and destination cities plus departure and return dates. Use it to compare outbound and return itinerary options in one search.
來回航班查詢 - 根據出發地、目的地、出發日期和回程日期查詢來回機票資訊
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| return_date | Yes | ||
| departure_city | Yes | ||
| departure_date | Yes | ||
| destination_city | 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, and it discloses almost nothing: no auth or rate-limit notes, no statement about result format, currency, or whether prices are live or cached. The only behavioral fact conveyed is that the search is round-trip rather than one-way.
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 with the resource and the four inputs front-loaded, and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though that brevity comes at the cost of detail elsewhere.
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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this four-required-parameter tool needs far more from its description than one line. Date format, city identifier convention, and return-value shape are all 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for four required string parameters, so the description must compensate. It names the four concepts (departure city, destination city, departure date, return date), which maps them to the schema properties, but adds no formats—city codes vs. names, date string format, or IATA conventions remain unknown.
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+resource: round-trip flight lookup, with the four query dimensions named. It is clear what the tool does, but it gives no differentiation from siblings like getFlightInfo, getFlightStatus, or getFlightsInArea, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone why it should pick this one.
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, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The implicit constraint that only round-trip searches are supported (return_date is required) is never surfaced as a usage rule, leaving the agent to infer routing against nine sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.