get_tool_detailsFetch one directory listing by slug, including its full description, install snippet and setup documentation. Use the slug returned by search_travel_tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Listing slug, for example "room-matching-api" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, and it adds useful context about what the response contains. It does not mention missing-slug behavior or formatting, but the annotations already communicate that this is a safe read operation.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler: the first states the core action and return contents, the second gives the operational prerequisite. Everything earns its place.
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 read-only retrieval tool, the definition is largely complete: it identifies the resource, the slug source, and the main response components. It lacks an explicit not-found response description, but this is a minor gap given the simple scope and existing annotations.
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 schema fully documents the slug parameter with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining that valid slugs come from search_travel_tools, which gives the agent operational grounding beyond the schema.
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 names a specific operation ('Fetch one directory listing by slug') and the exact contents returned (full description, install snippet, setup documentation). It also distinguishes this tool from its siblings by pointing to search_travel_tools as the source of the slug.
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?
'Use the slug returned by search_travel_tools' provides clear when-to-use guidance by tying this tool to a preceding search call. It does not explicitly contrast with list_categories, but for a simple retrieval follow-up step the usage context is clear enough.
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 has a clearly distinct responsibility: searching listings, listing categories, and fetching details by slug. There is no overlap between these operations.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern: get_tool_details, list_categories, search_travel_tools. The naming is predictable and easy to infer.
Three tools is well-scoped for a read-only directory server. Search, category browsing, and detail lookup cover the core needs without redundancy.
The core directory workflow is well covered. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit 'list all tools' or category-filtered listing, which may require a search term to discover entries.