Skip to main content
Glama

Gondola Award Travel Search

create_rate_alert

Create a rate alert to monitor a hotel for price drops. The user will be notified by email when the rate drops. Optionally specify dates, or leave them out to monitor any two-night stay.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "hotel_id": "<hotel_id>"
    },
    "name": "create_rate_alert"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
checkinNoOptional check-in date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
checkoutNoOptional check-out date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
hotel_idYesThe hotel's Vervotech property ID (from search results).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the user is notified by email on a drop, and omitting dates monitors any two-night stay. It does not mention rate limits or how to cancel/modify.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then behavior, then the optional-parameter rule. No filler; each sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 described. For a 3-param mutation with rich annotations, the description covers the action, notification channel, and date-omission case well, though it omits any caveats like duplicates or auth requirements.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of leaving checkin/checkout out (monitor any two-night stay) rather than just their format.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a rate alert') and the monitored resource (a hotel for price drops). Clear purpose, but it does not name or differentiate itself from the sibling tools get_rate_alerts and delete_rate_alert.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies when to use it (monitoring a hotel for price drops) and clarifies the optional-date behavior, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no prerequisites for the sibling alert tools.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.