Retrieve equipment IDs for manual flights by looking up aircraft reference data via IATA/ICAO code or model name.
Search aircraft type reference data by IATA/ICAO code or model name. Returns equipment IDs for manual flights. limit 1..100.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| 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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things those annotations do not: the 1..100 limit range (the schema declares no min/max) and the purpose of the returned equipment IDs. Matching semantics (exact vs. partial code match) remain undisclosed.
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?
Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by return semantics, then the range constraint. Nothing is redundant and nothing important is buried.
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 annotations covering behavior and an output schema covering return shape, the description only needs to convey purpose, query modes, and limits, and it does. The remaining gap is the lack of differentiation from lookup_aircraft, which is a nearby sibling an agent could easily pick by mistake.
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 carry the parameter burden, and it does: 'query' is defined as IATA/ICAO code or model name, and 'limit' is constrained to 1..100 even though the schema only shows a default of 20. It does not state what happens on out-of-range or zero values, so it is not fully compensating.
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 and resource ('Search aircraft type reference data') plus the matching modes ('by IATA/ICAO code or model name'), which is concrete and actionable. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling lookup_aircraft or search_airports, so sibling disambiguation is left to inference.
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?
'Returns equipment IDs for manual flights' implies the downstream use case (manual flight entry), which gives some contextual guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over lookup_aircraft or the other search_* reference tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.