Delete a rate alert to stop monitoring a hotel for price drops.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alert_id | Yes | The rate alert ID to delete (from get_rate_alerts). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The destructiveHint annotation already flags deletion, and the description reinforces it by explaining the operational effect (stopping price-drop monitoring). It does not mention reversibility or confirmation, but the annotation and simple delete action are sufficient.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every part contributes meaning.
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 one-parameter delete with a destructive annotation and an output schema, the description and parameter schema together provide everything needed: what it does, why, and where the ID comes from.
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 100%, and the parameter description already explains alert_id is from get_rate_alerts. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'rate alert' and explicitly states the purpose ('to stop monitoring a hotel for price drops'). This clearly distinguishes it from create_rate_alert and get_rate_alerts.
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 phrase 'to stop monitoring a hotel for price drops' provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the opposite action (create_rate_alert) is obvious from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action; no two tools have overlapping purposes. For example, search_hotels, get_hotel_details, get_hotel_reviews, and get_hotel_stats all address different aspects of hotel research.
Tool names follow consistent patterns: search_ for searches, get_ for retrievals, book_ for bookings, and a few standalone verbs like cancel_, create_, delete_. All use snake_case with no mixing of conventions.
With 31 tools, the server is on the high side but covers a broad domain (hotels, flights, vehicles, loyalty, payments). Most tools are justified, though a few hotel analysis tools could potentially be consolidated.
Hotels and vehicles have near-complete lifecycle coverage (search, details, book, manage), but flights are missing a book_flight tool, and hotel cancellation is not present. These gaps limit completeness.
