trackMultipleFlightsCheck the real-time status of multiple flights at once by passing flight numbers, enabling batch tracking without separate queries.
批量航班跟踪 - 同时查询多个航班的实时状态。flight_numbers为航班呼号列表，如['CCA1234','CSN5678']
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| flight_numbers | 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time status', which is a small behavioral hint, but omits permissions, rate limits, maximum batch size, error handling, and whether the date parameter defaults to today or is required for historical queries.
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 short and front-loaded: purpose first, then a concrete parameter example. It is efficient overall, though the opening phrase '批量航班跟踪' partially restates the tool name, adding slight redundancy.
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 batch tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It documents the key required parameter but leaves the date parameter, return format, batch limits, and error behavior unspecified.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does add useful meaning for the required 'flight_numbers' parameter by defining it as a list of flight callsigns and giving an example, but it completely ignores the optional 'date' parameter, leaving its format and default behavior undocumented.
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 clear verb+resource: batch query real-time status of multiple flights simultaneously. It distinguishes itself from single-flight siblings implicitly through 'multiple flights', but does not name a specific alternative tool like getFlightInfo or getFlightStatus, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
Usage is implied by the batch nature: use this when tracking several flights at once. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over single-flight tools such as getFlightInfo, nor any stated prerequisites, exclusions, or limits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.