Flight Ticket MCP Server

Does 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 querying detailed information but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('航班信息查询') and lists key data points. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context from data details.

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?

Given the complexity of flight data queries, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format (e.g., structured data vs. raw text), error cases, and behavioral traits like latency or data sources, making it inadequate for reliable agent use.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that the flight_number parameter is used to query detailed flight info, but it doesn't provide format details (e.g., airline code, number pattern) or examples. This offers basic context but falls short of fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: query detailed flight information based on flight number, listing specific data points like status, seat configuration, price, and weather. It distinguishes from siblings like getFlightStatus (which might only return status) and getAirportFlights (which queries by airport). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as trackMultipleFlights, which might handle multiple flights.

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 implies usage by stating '根据航班号查询' (query based on flight number), suggesting this tool is for single-flight queries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like getFlightsInArea (for area-based queries) or searchFlightRoutes (for route searches), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.