Google Hotel Prices
Server Details
Search hotel prices, get best overall and best direct price in structured response. Get your developer token at https://Infoseek.ai/mcp
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Only one tool exists, so there is no ambiguity. An agent cannot confuse it with any other tool.
With a single tool, naming is consistent by default. The name 'get_hotel_prices' is clear and follows a verb_noun pattern.
A single tool is borderline appropriate for a focused server, but it feels thin compared to typical MCP servers that offer more operations within the domain.
The server delivers exactly what it promises—hotel prices for given stays—but lacks any supporting tools for searching hotels, managing queries, or handling variations in dates, which are natural extensions.
Available Tools
1 toolget_hotel_pricesARead-onlyInspect
Get hotel prices for an exact set of hotel stays using a single shared check-in/check-out date range and an array of hotels. This tool resolves the final Google Hotels link for each hotel internally, then returns normalized best overall and best direct-booking prices plus one widget card per hotel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hotels | Yes | Required hotels to check within the shared stay window. Max 3 per request. Make multiple requests if more are needed | |
| hotel_guest_count | No | Optional shared hotel guest count. Defaults to 2. | |
| hotel_check_in_date_yyyy_mm_dd | Yes | Required shared hotel check-in date in YYYY-MM-DD. | |
| hotel_check_out_date_yyyy_mm_dd | Yes | Required shared hotel check-out date in YYYY-MM-DD. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | |
| cards | Yes | |
| count | Yes | |
| search | Yes | |
| results | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds value by disclosing internal resolution of Google Hotels links and the specific output (normalized best prices and widget cards per hotel). This goes beyond annotations to inform the agent about 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?
The description is two sentences and 49 words, front-loading the core purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description appropriately focuses on input constraints, internal process, and output types. It covers the shared date range, hotel array limit of 3, and the nature of results. A minor gap is the lack of mention of guest count or potential errors, but overall it is sufficient for a moderately complex tool with good annotations and schema.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage with clear explanations for each parameter. The description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema; it merely paraphrases the shared dates and hotel array. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.
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 retrieves hotel prices for a specific set of stays with shared dates and multiple hotels. It specifies the verb 'get' and the resource 'hotel prices', and distinguishes itself by mentioning internal resolution of Google Hotels links and output of normalized prices and widget cards. With no sibling tools, it is well-differentiated.
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 for batch price queries for multiple hotels in a single date range, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusion criteria or context comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!