Retrieves static assets from Flighty's API via a read-only lookup with no path parameters. Use it to fetch asset data for flights, airports, airlines, or aircraft.
get_static_assets: GET /v1/static_assets. Read-only lookup. No path parameters. Mutation behavior has not been live-tested.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| payload | No | ||
| confirm_destructive | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so restating 'Read-only lookup' adds nothing. The line 'Mutation behavior has not been live-tested' is confusing on a tool annotated read-only and does not clarify permissions, rate limits, or response behavior.
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?
Short and front-loaded, which is good, but the brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency and one sentence (the mutation note) is wasted or misleading.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description leaves the generic path/query/payload parameters undocumented and never states what the endpoint actually returns. For a four-parameter open-world tool this is incomplete.
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, and it only partially does by stating 'No path parameters'. That claim sits awkwardly against the schema's explicit 'path' property, and the query and payload fields are left entirely unexplained.
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 gives an HTTP verb and endpoint path ('GET /v1/static_assets') plus a vague gloss ('read-only lookup'). It names a resource but does not explain what static assets are or how this differs from any sibling, so an agent cannot tell it apart from get_schema or get_endpoint_catalog.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the many sibling retrieval tools. The only constraint offered is 'No path parameters', which is a parameter note rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.