Tineo

cruise day create

cruise_day_create

Idempotent

Preview and commit cruise day create operations atomically. First call cruise_get for expectedVersion. Omit confirmationToken to preview, show the changes to the user, then repeat the unchanged request with its token only after the user approves. Reuse idempotencyKey for retries. Omitting a field preserves it; null clears nullable fields. For commercial cruise reservations and sea/port days use cruise_* tools. Never substitute Activity, CruiseActivity or another segment type for a cruise day. Ordinary shore excursions remain valid Activity/CruiseActivity. If cruise tools are unavailable explain the limitation and ask for clarification.

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": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "cruise_day_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes
`confirmationToken`	No	Omit to preview. After the user reviews and approves the exact preview, repeat the unchanged request with its token to commit. Never manufacture approval.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`success`	Yes
`contractVersion`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context: the two-phase preview/commit approval gate, idempotencyKey reuse on retries, and the omit-versus-null field semantics. The one ambiguity is that 'omitting a field preserves it' is unusual phrasing for a create operation and could confuse an agent about default field state.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The definition is front-loaded with the core preview/commit pattern and prerequisites before moving to guardrails. Every sentence carries operational value, though the Activity/CruiseActivity clarification spans two sentences and could be tightened slightly.

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

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a mutation tool with an output schema and annotations already covering safety hints, the description fills the remaining gaps: approval workflow, version prerequisite, retry strategy, null semantics, and segment-type guardrails. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without guessing.

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 description coverage is 50%, but the description compensates well for the two top-level parameters: expectedVersion is tied to cruise_get output, confirmationToken's omit-to-preview behavior is spelled out, and idempotencyKey's retry role is defined. The nested request payload relies on the schema, which is reasonable given its depth.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The first sentence names a specific verb pair (preview and commit), the exact resource (cruise day create), and the atomic nature of the operation. It further separates this tool from Activity/CruiseActivity and from cruise_day_update-style siblings by stating that cruise days must never be modeled as another segment type.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit ordered workflow: call cruise_get for expectedVersion, preview without confirmationToken, show changes, then resubmit unchanged with the token after approval. It also names exclusions (do not substitute Activity/CruiseActivity for a cruise day, shore excursions stay Activity) and a fallback when cruise tools are unavailable.

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

All Tineo tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?